Upper and Lower Ordinate Sets
Let be a measurable space so that
itself is measurable — that is, so that
is a
-algebra — and let
be the real line with the
-algebra of Borel sets.
If is a real-valued, non-negative function on
, then we define the “upper ordinate set” to be the subset
such that
We also define the “lower ordinate set” to be the subset such that
We will explore some basic properties of these sets.
First, if is the characteristic function
of a measurable subset
, then
is the measurable rectangle
, while
is the measurable rectangle
.
Next, if is a non-negative simple function, then we can write it as the linear combination of characteristic functions of disjoint subsets. If
, then for each
the upper ordinate set
is the measurable rectangle
while the lower ordinate set
is the measurable rectangle
. Since the
are all disjoint, the upper ordinate set
is the disjoint union of all the
, and similarly for the lower ordinate sets. Thus the upper and lower ordinate sets of a simple function are both measurable.
Next we have some monotonicity properties: if and
are non-negative functions so that
for all
, then
and
. Indeed, if
then
, so
as well, and similarly for the lower ordinate sets.
If is an increasing sequence of non-negative functions converging pointwise to a function
, then
is an increasing sequence of sets whose union is
. That
is increasing is clear from the above monotonicity property, and just as clearly they’re all contained in
. On the other hand, if
, then
But since
increases to
, this means that
for some
, and so
. Thus
is contained in the union of the
. Similarly, if
is decreasing to
, then
decreases to
.
Finally (for now), if is a non-negative measurable function, then
and
are both measurable. The lower ordinate set
is easier, since we know that we can pick an increasing sequence of non-negative measurable simple functions converging pointwise to
. Their lower ordinate sets are all measurable, and they form an increasing sequence of measurable sets whose union is
. Since this is a countable union of measurable sets, it must be itself measurable.
For we have to be a little trickier. First, if
is bounded above by
, then
is non-negative and also bounded above by
, and we can find an increasing sequence
of non-negative measurable simple functions converging pointwise to
. Then
is a decreasing sequence of non-negative simple functions converging pointwise to
. The catch is that the measurability of a simple function only asks that all the nonzero sets on which it is defined be measurable. That is, in principle the zero set of
may be non-measurable. However, the zero set of
is the complement of
, and since this set is measurable we can use the assumed measurability of
to see that
is measurable as well. And so we see that
is measurable as well. Thus
is a decreasing sequence of measurable sets, converging to
, which must thus be measurable.
Now, for a general , we can consider the sequence
which replaces any value
with
. Each of these functions is still measurable (again using the measurability of
), and is now bounded. Thus
is an increasing sequence of measurable sets, and I say that now their union is
. Indeed, each is contained in
, so the union must be. On the other hand, if
, then
. But since
, there is some
so that
. Thus
, and so
, and is in the union as well. Since
is the union of a countable sequence of measurable sets, it is itself measurable.
Incidentally, this implies that if is a non-negative measurable function, then the difference
is measurable. But we can calculate this difference as
That is, is exactly the graph of the function
, and so we see that the graph of a non-negative measurable function is measurable.