Hahn Decompositions

Given a signed measure $\mu$ on a measurable space $(X,\mathcal{S})$ , we can use it to break up the space into two pieces. One of them will contribute positive measure, while the other will contribute negative measure. First: some preliminary definitions.

We call a set $E\subseteq X$ “positive” (with respect to $\mu$ ) if for every measurable $F\in\mathcal{S}$ the intersection $E\cap F$ is measurable, and $\mu(E\cap F)\geq0$ . That is, it’s not just that $E$ has positive measure, but every measurable part of $E$ has positive measure. Similarly, we say that $E$ is “negative” if for every measurable $F$ the intersection $E\cap F$ is measurable, and $\mu(E\cap F)\leq0$ . For example, the empty set is both positive and negative. It should be clear from these definitions that the difference of two negative sets is negative, and any disjoint countable union of negative sets is negative, and (thus) any countable union at all of negative sets is negative.

Now, for every signed measure $\mu$ there is a “Hahn decomposition” of $X$ . That is, there are two disjoint sets $A$ and $B$ , with $A$ positive and $B$ negative with respect to $\mu$ , and whose union is all of $X$ . We’ll assume that $-\infty<\mu(E)\leq\infty$ , but if $\mu$ takes the value $-\infty$ (and not $\infty$ ) the modifications aren’t difficult.

We write $\beta=\inf\mu(B)$ , taking the infimum over all measurable negative sets $B$ . We must be able to find a sequence $\{B_i\}$ of measurable negative sets so that the limit of the $\mu(B_i)$ is $\beta$ — just pick $B_i$ so that $\beta\leq\mu(B_i)<\beta+\frac{1}{i}$ — and we can pick the sequence to be monotonic, with $B_i\subseteq B_{i+1}$ . If we define $B$ as the union — the limit — of this sequence, then we must have $\mu(B)=\beta$ . The measurable negative set $B$ has minimal measure $\mu(B)$ .

Now we pick $A=X\setminus B$ , and we must show that $A$ is positive. If it wasn’t, there would be a measurable subset $E_0\subseteq A$ with $\mu(E_0)<0$ . This $E_0$ cannot itself be negative, or else $B\uplus E_0$ would be negative and we’d have $\mu(B\uplus E_0)=\mu(B)+\mu(E_0)<\mu(B)$ , contradicting the minimality of $\mu(B)$ .

So $E_0$ must contain some subsets of positive measure. We let $k_1$ be the smallest positive integer so that $E_0$ contains a subset $E_1\subseteq E_0$ with $\mu(E_1)\geq\frac{1}{k_1}$ . Then observe that

$\displaystyle\mu(E_0\setminus E_1)=\mu(E_0)-\mu(E_1)\leq\mu(E_0)-\frac{1}{k_1}<0$

So everything we just said about $E_0$ holds as well for $E_0\setminus E_1$ . We let $k_2$ be the smallest positive integer so that $E_0\setminus E_1$ contains a subset $E_2\subseteq E_0\setminus E_1$ with $\mu(E_2)\geq\frac{1}{k_2}$ . And so on we go until in the limit we’re left with

$\displaystyle F_0=E_0\setminus\biguplus\limits_{i=1}^\infty E_i$

after taking out all the sets $E_i$ .

Since $-\infty<\mu(E_0)<0$ , the measure of $E_0$ is finite, and so the measure of any subset of $E_0$ must be finite as well. Thus the limits of the $\frac{1}{k_n}$ must be zero, so that the measure of the countable disjoint union of all the $E_n$ can converge. And so any remaining measurable set $F$ that can fit into $F_0$ must have $\mu(F)\leq0$ . That is, $F_0$ must be a measurable negative set disjoint from $B$ . But we must have

$\displaystyle\mu(F_0)=\mu(E_0)-\sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty\mu(E_i)\leq\mu(E_0)<0$

which contradicts the minimality of $\mu(B)$ just like $E_0$ would have if it had been a negative set. And thus the assumption that $\mu(E_0)<0$ is untenable, and so every measurable subset of $A$ has positive measure.

June 24, 2010 - Posted by John Armstrong | Analysis, Measure Theory

6 Comments »

[…] It’s not too hard to construct examples showing that Hahn decompositions for a signed measure, though they exist, are not unique. But if we have two of them — […]

Pingback by Jordan Decompositions « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 25, 2010 | Reply
[…] that implies that is the zero measure. The triangle inequality takes a bit more work. We take a Hahn decomposition for and […]

Pingback by The Banach Space of Totally Finite Signed Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 28, 2010 | Reply
[…] give a Hahn decomposition corresponding to . I say that if we […]

Pingback by The Jordan Decomposition of an Indefinite Integral « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 29, 2010 | Reply
[…] we take the supremum over all measurable functions with everywhere. Indeed, if we take a Hahn decomposition for , then since is measurable so are and . If we take and , then we […]

Pingback by Integration with Respect to a Signed Measure « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 30, 2010 | Reply
[…] let be a Hahn decomposition for . We find that is a -finite measure on , while is a -finite measure on […]

Pingback by The Radon-Nikodym Theorem for Signed Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 8, 2010 | Reply
[…] holds for itself, and so we may assume that is also a measure. We can further simplify by using Hahn decompositions with respect to both and , passing to subspaces on which each of our signed measures has a […]

Pingback by The Radon-Nikodym Chain Rule « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 12, 2010 | Reply

About this weblog

This is mainly an expository blath, with occasional high-level excursions, humorous observations, rants, and musings. The main-line exposition should be accessible to the “Generally Interested Lay Audience”, as long as you trace the links back towards the basics. Check the sidebar for specific topics (under “Categories”).

I’m in the process of tweaking some aspects of the site to make it easier to refer back to older topics, so try to make the best of it for now.

RSS Feeds

RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
Feedback

Got something to say? Anonymous questions, comments, and suggestions at Formspring.me!
Subjects

Subjects
Archives

June 2010

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

« May Jul »
Search for:

The Unapologetic Mathematician

Mathematics for the interested outsider