The Unapologetic Mathematician

Mathematics for the interested outsider

Almost Everywhere

Now we come to one of the most common terms of art in analysis: “almost everywhere”. It’s unusual in that it sounds perfectly colloquial, and yet it has a very technical meaning.

The roots of “almost everywhere” are in the notion of a negligible set. If we’re working with a measure space (X,\mathcal{S},\mu) we don’t really care about subsets of sets of measure zero, and anything that happens only on such a negligible set we try to sweep under the rug. For example, let’s say we have a function defined by f(x)=0 for all x\neq0, and by f(0)=1. Colloquially, we say that f is zero “almost everywhere” because the set where it isn’t zero — the singleton \{0\} — has measure zero.

In general, if we have some property P that can be applied to points x\in X, then we say P is true “almost everywhere” if the set where P is false is negligible. That is, if we can find some measurable set E with \mu(E)=0 so that P is true for all x\notin E. Note that we don’t particularly care if the set where P is false is itself measurable, although if \mu is complete then all \mu-negligible sets will be measurable. This sort of language is so common in measure theory and analysis that it’s often abbreviated as “a.e.”. Older texts will say “p.p.” for the French equivalent “presque partout“. In probability theory (measure theory’s cousin) we run into “a.s.” for “almost surely”.

No matter how we say or write it, “almost everywhere” has a hidden dependence on some measure. In many cases, the measure is obvious from context, in that there’s only one measure under consideration on a given space. However, in the case where we have two measures \mu and \nu on the same measurable space, we may distinguish them by writing “\mu-almost everywhere” and “\mu-almost everywhere” (or “\mu-a.e.” and “\nu-a.e.”), or by explicitly stating with respect to which measure we mean.

We’ve actually seen this sort of thing in the wild before; Lebesgue’s condition can be reformulated to say that a bounded function f:[a,b]\rightarrow\mathbb{R} defined on an n-dimensional interval [a,b] is Riemann integrable on that interval if and only if f is continuous almost everywhere (with respect to Lebesgue measure).

As more of a new example, we say that a function f:X\to\mathbb{R} is “essentially bounded” if it is bounded almost everywhere. That is, if there is a constant c and some measurable set E\subseteq X with \mu(E)=0 so that \lvert f(x)\rvert\leq c for all x\notin E. We’re willing to accept some points exceeding c, but no more than a set of measure zero. The infimum of all such essential bounds is the “essential supremum” of \lvert f\rvert, written \text{ess sup}(\lvert f\rvert).

About these ads

May 13, 2010 - Posted by | Analysis, Measure Theory

15 Comments »

  1. I think that you want, in the last paragraph, to say “some set of zero measure E” or something like this.

    Comment by Tracer | May 13, 2010 | Reply

  2. Yes, sorry.. that got edited out.

    Comment by John Armstrong | May 13, 2010 | Reply

  3. [...] Almost Everywhere Okay, so let’s take our idea of almost everywhere and apply it to convergence of sequences of measurable [...]

    Pingback by Convergence Almost Everywhere « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 14, 2010 | Reply

  4. [...] go wrong at the one point, and the singleton has measure zero. That is, the sequence converges almost everywhere to the function with constant value . The convergence still isn’t uniform, though, because we [...]

    Pingback by Egoroff’s Theorem « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 17, 2010 | Reply

  5. [...] have to caution ourselves that this is not almost everywhere uniform convergence, which would be a sequence that converges uniformly once we cut out a subset of [...]

    Pingback by Almost Uniform Convergence « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 18, 2010 | Reply

  6. [...] is integrable and is an essentially bounded measurable function, then the product is integrable. Indeed, if a.e., then a.e. as well. Since [...]

    Pingback by Using the Dominated Convergence Theorem « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 11, 2010 | Reply

  7. [...] is an essentially bounded measurable function with a.e. for some real numbers and , and if is any integrable function, [...]

    Pingback by The Integral Mean Value Theorem « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 14, 2010 | Reply

  8. [...] measure . That is, we can subtract off a little bit (but not zero!) of from and still find a non–negligible set on which what remains is completely [...]

    Pingback by The Radon-Nikodym Theorem (Statement) « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 6, 2010 | Reply

  9. [...] of measure zero. However, remember that in measure theory we usually talk about things that happen almost everywhere. That is, we consider two sets — two elements of — to be “the same” if [...]

    Pingback by Functions on Boolean Rings and Measure Rings « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 5, 2010 | Reply

  10. [...] of a Baire set is one that can’t be filled up by “negligible” sets. We’ve used that term in measure theory to denote a subset of a set of measure zero. But in topology we don’t have [...]

    Pingback by Baire Sets « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 13, 2010 | Reply

  11. [...] and Minkowski’s inequality a little further. Given a metric space , we’ve already discussed the idea of an “essentially bounded” function — one for which there is some real [...]

    Pingback by The Supremum Metric « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 30, 2010 | Reply

  12. [...] solid mathematical definitions, like: energy, jerk, information, temperature, significant, curl, almost-everywhere, [...]

    Pingback by Q: How much of physics can be deduced from previous equations/axioms? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist | August 17, 2011 | Reply

  13. Do you know if this term “almost everywhere” along with it’s abbreviation “a.e.” was in existence in the late 16th Century?

    Comment by David Ewald | March 3, 2014 | Reply

    • I do not; is there a particular reason you’re wondering?

      Comment by John Armstrong | March 3, 2014 | Reply

      • I am afraid that it is too obscure for you to be bothered with the details, but thank you for your kind response.

        Comment by David Ewald | March 3, 2014 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 388 other followers

%d bloggers like this: