## Continuity of Measures

Again we start with definitions. An extended real-valued set function on a collection of sets is “continuous from below” at a set if for every increasing sequence of sets — that is, with each — for which — remember that this limit can be construed as the infinite union of the sets in the sequence — we have . Similarly, is “continuous from above” at if for every decreasing sequence for which and which has for at least one set in the sequence we have . Of course, as usual we say that is continuous from above (below) if it is continuous from above (below) at each set in its domain.

Now I say that a measure is continuous from above and below.

First, if is an increasing sequence whose limit is also in , then . Let’s define and calculate

where we’ve used countable (and finite) additivity to turn the disjoint union into a sum and back.

Next, if is a decreasing sequence whose limit is also 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 calculate

And thus a measure is continuous from above and from below.

On the other hand we have this partial converse: Let be a finite, non-negative, additive set function on an algebra . Then if either is continuous from below at every or is continuous from above at , then is a measure. That is, either one of these continuity properties is enough to guarantee countable additivity.

Since is defined on an algebra, which is closed under finite unions, we can bootstrap from additivity to finite additivity. So let be a countably infinite sequence of pairwise disjoint sets in whose (disjoint) union is also in , and define the two sequences in :

If is continuous from below, is an increasing sequence converging to . We find

On the other hand, if is continuous from above at , then is a decreasing sequence converging to . We find

[…] sets on which and agree, then the limit of this sequence is again in . Indeed, since measures are continuous, we must […]

Pingback by Extensions of Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 6, 2010 |

[…] since is continuous, we see […]

Pingback by Approximating Sets of Finite Measure « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 7, 2010 |

[…] in Mean First off we want to introduce another notion of continuity for set functions. We recall that a set function on a class is continuous from above at if for every decreasing sequence of […]

Pingback by Equicontinuity, Convergence in Measure, and Convergence in Mean « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 9, 2010 |

[…] so for all . A.e. convergence tells us that the measure of the intersection of all the is . By continuity, we conclude […]

Pingback by Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence Theorem « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 10, 2010 |

[…] we turn to some continuity properties. If is a monotone sequence — if it’s decreasing we also ask that at least […]

Pingback by Signed Measures and Sequences « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 23, 2010 |

[…] a monotone sequence of simple so that or . Then the limit will commute with (since measures are continuous), and it will commute with the integral as […]

Pingback by The Measures of Ordinate Sets « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 26, 2010 |

[…] what we know about continuity, we just have to show that is continuous from above at to show that it’s a measure. That […]

Pingback by Infinite Products, Part 2 « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 30, 2010 |

[…] we need to check is continuity. We know that it suffices to show that is continuous from above at . So, let be a decreasing sequence of measurable sets […]

Pingback by Associated Metric Spaces and Absolutely Continuous Measures II « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 17, 2010 |

Very informative. Thanks!

Comment by Tim Fortune | February 8, 2013 |

Is there a way to find a counterexample for the monotonically decreasing sequence result, for \mu(A_1) = \infty?

Comment by Alice | April 6, 2013 |

I think you’re slightly confused, Alice, which is fine; the condition is confusing. It states that, given a set , a certain property must hold for all decreasing sequences starting from with finite measure that converge to . It doesn’t say anything about what must happen when a sequence that decreases to starts with a set of infinite measure; the property may or may not hold for such sequences, but that has no bearing on the continuity of the measure at .

Comment by John Armstrong | April 6, 2013 |

Oh right, I think I mis-read this. I think I’m speaking of the property of the monotonicity of measure whereby the measure of the infinite intersection taken over a decreasing sequence is the limit of the measure of the set $A_n$,

\mu ( \cap^{\infty} A_n)= \lim \mu (A_n), where A_{n+1} \subset A_n.

So here, I’m asking for an example where the sequence starts with infinite measure, and this condition fails to hold. So sorry for this confusion!

Comment by Alice | April 6, 2013 |

Well, I could imagine cooking up a space with a countably infinite number of points assigned an infinite measure each; the sequence is along with all of them, and then removing one point at a time. The limit of the sequence is since each point will eventually be removed, but the measure of each set is infinite.

I’m not really a measure theorist so I’m sort of waving my hands here at the idea that such a pathological space would be valid, but I think something along those lines should work.

Comment by John Armstrong | April 6, 2013 |

Would the Lebesgue measure on [n, \infty ) work?

Comment by Alice | April 7, 2013 |

Well, the trick is to get it so that the limit of the sequence has a finite measure. Otherwise the limit of the measures is the measure of the limit. I suppose in this case the limit is empty, so that might qualify.

Comment by John Armstrong | April 7, 2013 |

well the limit on the measure would be 0 which is definitely finite, I’m slightly dubious that the measure of the infinite intersection may not be different though….?

Comment by Alice | April 7, 2013 |

No, each of those sets has infinite measure, so the limit of the measures is infinite. But the intersection is empty (no real number can be in it), so the measure of the limit is zero.

Comment by John Armstrong | April 8, 2013 |

I see, thank you so much for clearing this up!

Comment by Alice | April 8, 2013 |