Singularity
Another relation between signed measures besides absolute continuity — indeed, in a sense the opposite of absolute continuity — is singularity. We say that two signed measures and
are “mutually singular” and write
if there exists a partition of
into two sets
so that for every measurable set
the intersections
and
are measurable, and
We sometimes just say that and
are singular, or that (despite the symmetry of the definition) “
is singular with respect to
“, or vice versa.
In a manner of speaking, if and
are mutually singular then all of the sets that give
a nonzero value are contained in
, while all of the sets that give
a nonzero value are contained in
, and the two never touch. In contradistinction to absolute continuity, not only does the vanishing of
not imply the vanishing of
, but if we pare away portions of a set for which
gives zero measure then what remains — essentially the only sets for which
doesn’t automatically vanish — is necessarily a set for which
does vanish. Another way to see this is to notice that if
and
are signed measures with both
and
, then we must necessarily have
; singularity says that
must vanish on any set
with
, and absolute continuity says
must vanish on any set
with
.
As a quick and easy example, let and
be the Jordan decomposition of a signed measure
. Then a Hahn decomposition for
gives exactly such a partition
showing that
.
One interesting thing is that singular measures can be added. That is, if and
are both singular with respect to
, then
. Indeed, let
and
be decompositions showing that
and
, respectively. That is, for any measurable set
we have
Then we can write
It’s easy to check that must vanish on measurable subsets of
, and that
must vanish on measurable subsets of the remainder of
.