# The Unapologetic Mathematician

## Monotonicity of Measures

First, we make a couple of definitions. A set function $\mu$ on a collection of sets $\mathcal{E}$ is “monotone” if whenever we have $E_1$ and $E_2$ in $\mathcal{E}$ with $E_1\subseteq E_2$, then $\mu(E_1)\leq\mu(E_2)$. We say that $\mu$ is “subtractive” if whenever further $E_2\setminus E_1\in\mathcal{E}$ and $\lvert\mu(E_1)\rvert<\infty$, then $\mu(E_2\setminus E_1)=\mu(E_2)-\mu(E_1)$.

Now I say that any measure on an algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is both monotone and subtractive. Indeed, since $\mathcal{A}$ is an algebra, then $E_2\setminus E_1$ is guaranteed to be in $\mathcal{A}$ as well, and it’s disjoint from $E_1$. And so we see that

$\displaystyle\mu(E_2)=\mu(E_1\uplus(E_2\setminus E_1))=\mu(E_1)+\mu(E_2\setminus E_1)$

Since $\mu$ is non-negative, we must have $\mu(E_2)\geq\mu(E_1)$, and so $\mu$ is monotone. And if $\mu(E_1)$ is finite, then we can subtract it from both sides of this equation to show that $\mu$ is subtractive as well.

Next, say $\mu$ is a measure on an algebra $\mathcal{A}$. If we have a set $A\in\mathcal{A}$ and a finite or (countably) infinite sequence of sets $\{A_i\}$ so that $A\subseteq\bigcup_iA_i$, then we have the inequality $\mu(A)\leq\sum_i\mu(A_i)$. To show this, we’ll invoke a very useful trick: if $\{F_i\}$ is a sequence of sets in an algebra $A$, then there is a pairwise disjoint sequence $\{G_i\}$ of sets so that each $G_i\subseteq F_i$ and $\bigcup_iG_i=\bigcup_iF_i$. Indeed, we define

$\displaystyle G_i=F_i\setminus\bigcup\limits_{1\leq j

That is, $G_1$ is the same as $F_1$, and after that point each $G_i$ is everything in $F_i$ that hasn’t been covered already.

So we start with $B_i=A\cap A_i$, and come up with a new sequence $\{C_i\}$. The (disjoint) union of the $C_i$ is, $A$ like the union of the $B_i$. Then, by the countable additivity of $\mu$, we have $\mu(A)=\sum_i\mu(C_i)$. But the monotonicity says that $\mu(C_i)\leq\mu(B_i)$, and also that $\mu(B_i)\leq\mu(A_i)$, and so $\mu(A)\leq\sum_i\mu(A_i)$.

On the other hand, if $\{A_i\}$ is a pairwise disjoint and we have $\bigcup_iA_i\subseteq A$, then $\sum_i\mu(A_i)\leq\mu(A)$. Indeed, if $\{A_i\}$ is a finite sequence, then the union $\bigcup_iA_i$ is in $\mathcal{A}$. Monotonicity and finite additivity then tell us that

$\displaystyle\sum\limits_i\mu(A_i)=\mu\left(\bigcup\limits_iA_i\right)\leq\mu(A)$

However if $\{A_i\}$ is an infinite sequence, then what we just said applies to any finite subsequence. Then the sum $\sum_{i=1}^\infty\mu(A_i)$ is the limit of the sums $\sum_{i=1}^n\mu(A_i)$. Each of these is less than or equal to $\mu(A)$, and so their limit must be as well.

March 22, 2010 - Posted by | Analysis, Measure Theory

1. […] in , and if at least one of the has finite measure, then . Indeed, if has finite measure then by monotonicity, and thus the limit must have finite measure as well. Now is an increasing sequence, and we […]

Pingback by Continuity of Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | March 23, 2010 | Reply

2. […] is contained in the union of the symmetric difference and the symmetric difference . And so monotonicity tells us […]

Pingback by Measure as Metric « The Unapologetic Mathematician | March 24, 2010 | Reply

3. […] is, . Thus we must have . On the other hand, if is contained in the union of a sequence , then monotonicity tells us that , and thus . That is, must be equal to for sets ; as a set function, indeed […]

Pingback by Extending a Measure to an Outer Measure « The Unapologetic Mathematician | March 26, 2010 | Reply

4. […] and show that the set function which assigns any semiclosed interval its length has various monotonicity […]

Pingback by An Example of Monotonicity « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 15, 2010 | Reply

5. […] it’s a Borel set. Further, monotonicity tells us […]

Pingback by Borel Sets and Lebesgue Measure « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 20, 2010 | Reply

6. […] set and pick another one . Then we see that , and so our hypothesis tells us that . Since , the subtractivity of tells us that , and we conclude that . That is, every measurable set that fits into must have […]

Pingback by Measurable Subspaces III « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 29, 2010 | Reply

7. […] We can rewrite this as . If is integrable, then and both have finite measure, and so is subtractive. Thus we can […]

Pingback by Integrating Simple Functions « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 24, 2010 | Reply

8. […] course, just as for measures, signed measures are finitely additive (which we used above) and thus subtractive. It won’t be monotone, in general, though; Given a set and a subset we can […]

Pingback by Signed Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 22, 2010 | Reply