The Radon-Nikodym Theorem (Statement)
Before the main business, a preliminary lemma: if and
are totally finite measures so that
is absolutely continuous with respect to
, and
is not identically zero, then there is a positive number
and a measurable set
so that
and
is a positive set for the signed 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 positive.
To show this, let be a Hahn decomposition with respect to the signed measure
for each positive integer
. Let
be the union of all the
and let
be the intersection of all the
. Then since
and
is negative for
we find
for every positive integer . This shows that we must have
. And then, since
is not identically zero we must have
. By absolute continuity we conclude that
, which means that we must have
for at least one value of
. So we pick just such a value, set
, and
, and everything we asserted is true.
Now for the Radon-Nikodym Theorem: we let be a totally
-finite measure space and let
be a
-finite signed measure on
which is absolutely continuous with respect to
. Then
is an indefinite integral. That is, there is a finite-valued measurable function
so that
for every measurable set . The function
is unique in the sense that if any other function
has
as its indefinite integral, then
-almost everywhere. It should be noted that we don’t assert that
is integrable, which will only be true of
is actually finite. However, either its positive or its negative integral must converge or we wouldn’t use the integral sign for a divergent integral.
Let’s take a moment and consider what this means. We know that if we take an integrable function , or a function whose integral diverges definitely, on a
-finite measure space and define its indefinite integral
, then
is a
-finite signed measure that is absolutely continuous with respect to the measure against which we integrate. What the Radon-Nikodym theorem tells us that any such signed measure arises as the indefinite integral of some such function
. Further, it tells us that such a function is essentially unique, as much as any function is in measure theory land. In particular, we can tell that if we start with a function
and get its indefinite integral, then any other function with the same indefinite integral must be a.e. equal to
.

[...] Radon-Nikodym Theorem (Proof) Today we set about the proof of the Radon-Nikodym theorem. We assumed that is a -finite measure space, and that is a -finite signed measure. Thus we can [...]
Pingback by The Radon-Nikodym Theorem (Proof) « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 7, 2010 |
[...] Radon-Nikodym Theorem for Signed Measures Now that we’ve proven the Radon-Nikodym theorem, we can extend it to the case where is a -finite signed [...]
Pingback by The Radon-Nikodym Theorem for Signed Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 8, 2010 |
[...] Radon-Nikodym Derivative Okay, so the Radon-Nikodym theorem and its analogue for signed measures tell us that if we have two -finite signed measures and with [...]
Pingback by The Radon-Nikodym Derivative « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 9, 2010 |
[...] the proof itself, the core is based on our very first result about absolute continuity: . Thus the Radon-Nikodym theorem tells us that there exists a function so [...]
Pingback by Lebesgue Decomposition « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 14, 2010 |
[...] we can combine this with the Radon-Nikodym theorem. If is a measurable function from a measure space to a totally -finite measure space so that the [...]
Pingback by Pulling Back and Pushing Forward Structure « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 2, 2010 |
[...] that , and thus that is a (signed) measure. It should also be clear that implies , and so . The Radon-Nikodym theorem now tells us that there exists an integrable function so [...]
Pingback by Some Continuous Duals « The Unapologetic Mathematician | September 3, 2010 |
In the argument, when you said 0<=nu(Bo)<=1/n*mu(Bo). It is not clear to me why, 0<=nu(Bo). I tried to search through many books, but not found any where.
The measures
and
are not signed measures here.
I’m also confused. Following suneel’s comment, though I understand that mu and nu are not signed measures, but why would that specifically mean that 0<=nu(Bo)?
Go back to the definition of a measure: “an extended real-valued, non-negative, countably additive set function
defined on an algebra
, and satisfying
.” By definition, measures are nonnegative.
Now my question is different, Radon-Nikodym theorem is for signed measure and we are using this lemma(which is only for positive measure) in the proof of Radon-Nikodym, I am loosing some connection here? Thanks for clarification.
There’s a separate version of Radon-Nikodym for signed measures. Look up at comment #2, which is the pingback from a later post called “The Radon-Nikodym Theorem for Signed Measures”.