Densities and derivatives
[23/0%]Let be the measure defined for all subsets of by if , and . Show that for all nonnegative functions .
Let denote the measure on with equal to the number of points in (possibly infinite), and let for all nonempty . Show that has no density with respect to , even though both measures have the same negligible sets.
Suppose and are functions in for which for all in , for some measure .
Show that a.e. [ ] if . Hint: Consider the equality .
Show that the assumption of finiteness of is not required for the conclusion a.e. [ ] if is a sigma-finite measure. Hint: For each positive rational number show that for each set with .
Let and be probability measures on (), and let be a generating class for that is stable under finite intersections and contains . Suppose there exists a in such that for every in . Show that has density with respect to .
Does Example have an analog for convergence, for some : if is a finite measure dominated by a measure , and if is a sequence of measurable functions for which , does it follow that ?
Let and be finite measures on the sigma-field generated by a countable field . Suppose that for each there exists a such that for each in with . Show that is absolutely continuous with respect to , as measures on .
Let and be finite measures on . Suppose has Lebesgue decomposition with respect to . Find the Lebesgue decomposition of with respect to .
Show that a measure is sigma-finite if and only if there exists a strictly positive, measurable function for which .
Suppose and are both Lebesgue decompositions for a finite measure with respect to a finite measure . Prove a.e. and a.e. by the following steps.
Show that a.e. [ ] by means of the equality , and a companion equality obtained by interchanging the roles of the two decompositions. Using the trivial fact that a.e. [ ] (because both sets are -negligible), deduce that a.e. .
Use the result from part (i) to show that
Deduce that a.e. [ ] by arguing as in Problem [3].
Use part (ii) to show that
Hint: What value does take on ? Argue similarly for the companion equality. Deduce that a.e. .
Extend the argument to prove the analogous uniqueness assertion for the Lebesgue decomposition when and are sigma-finite measures. Hint: Decompose into countably many sets with for each .
Suppose and are both sigma-finite measures on .
Show that is also sigma-finite. Deduce via Problem [8] that there exists a strictly positive, measurable function for which and .
Define and for each in . Show that and are both finite measures.
From the Lebesgue decomposition for all , where and , derive the corresponding Lebesgue decomposition for with respect to .
From the uniqueness result of Problem [9], applied to and , deduce that the Lebesgue decomposition for is unique up to the appropriate almost sure equivalences.
Let be a finite measure for which , where each is dominated by a fixed sigma-finite measure and each is singular with respect to . Show that and .
Let and be finite measures with densities and with respect to a sigma-finite measure . Define as the measure with density with respect to .
Show that , the supremum running over all finite partitions of .
Show that .
Let and be probability measures with densities and with respect to a sigma-finite measure . For fixed , show that does not depend on the choice of dominating measure.
Adapt the argument from the previous Problem to show that the relative entropy does not depend on the choice of dominating measure.
Let be the standard Cauchy distribution on the real line, and let be the standard normal distribution. Show that , even though and are mutually absolutely continuous.
Let and be probability measures defined on the same sigma-field . A randomized test is a measurable function with . (For observation , the value gives the probability of rejecting the "hypothesis" .) Find the test that minimizes .
Let and be finite measures defined on the same sigma-field , with densities and with respect to a measure . Suppose is a measurable set with the property that there exists a nonnegative constant such that on and on . For each -measurable function with and , prove that .
Let and be signed measures, in the sense of Section 3. Show that is the largest signed measure for which and .
Let , for . Use the representations
to show that .
Show that the function is not integrable on [0,1].
Prove Theorem by establishing the following assertions.
Theorem 19: Let be a continuous function defined on an interval , with a (real-valued) right-hand derivative existing at each point of . If is Lebesgue integrable then for each in , and hence is an absolutely continuous function on .
With no loss of generality, assume and and . Write for Lebesgue measure on . Fix . Define for each integer , both positive and negative. Note that
There exist open sets and compact sets with and , with so small that the functions
satisfy the inequalities and and .
The function , for a large enough positive integer , has the properties and .
The function is lower semicontinuous, that is, for each real number the set is open.
For , define a continuous function . It achieves its maximum at some point in . We cannot have , for otherwise there would be a small for which for , and , from which we could conclude that , a contradiction. Thus . That is, , for each .
Similarly for .
An analogous argument applied to gives the reverse inequality, letting us conclude that for . The function is absolutely continuous on .
Let be a continuous real function defined on [0,1). Suppose the right-hand derivative exists and is finite everywhere. If is an increasing function, show that is convex.
Let be integrable with respect to Lebesgue measure on . Show that
Generalize by replacing open balls by decreasing sequences of closed sets that are regular in the sense of Section 5.