Section 9.1

The Radon-Nikodym Theorem, Part I

[21/62%]
Show
LaTeX
Problem 9.1.1

In the definition of an additive set function, show that the series ∑n=1∞φ(An)\sum_{n=1}^{\infty } \varphi \left(A_{n}\right) must converge absolutely.

?
Problem 9.1.2

In Claim 4, quickly verify that φ−\varphi^{-}is a finite measure with support A−A^{-}.

Definition (preceding Claim 4). Let (A+,A−)\left(A^{+}, A^{-}\right)denote a Hahn decomposition of Ω\Omega with respect to the additive set function φ\varphi. Define φ+:F→R\varphi^{+}: \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb {R} and φ−:F→R\varphi^{-}: \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb {R} by writing φ+(A)=φ(A∩A+)\varphi^{+}(A)=\varphi \left(A \cap A^{+}\right)and φ−(A)=−φ(A∩A−)\varphi^{-}(A)=-\varphi \left(A \cap A^{-}\right)for every A∈FA \in \mathcal{F}; φ+\varphi^{+}and φ−\varphi^{-}are called the upper and lower variation of φ\varphi, and φ=φ+−φ−\varphi =\varphi^{+}-\varphi^{-}is called the Jordan decomposition of φ\varphi.

Claim 4. Assume the notation above. The functions φ+\varphi^{+}and φ−\varphi^{-}above are finite measures on F\mathcal{F}, having supports A+A^{+}and A−A^{-}, respectively. (Therefore, φ+\varphi^{+}and φ−\varphi^{-}have disjoint supports.) [The proof for φ+\varphi^{+}is given in the text; this exercise asks for the analogous argument for φ−\varphi^{-}.]

?
Problem 9.1.3

Suppose that ( A+,A−A^{+}, A^{-}) and ( B+,B−B^{+}, B^{-}) are Hahn decompositions with respect to an additive set function φ\varphi. Then φ(A+ΔB+)=φ(A−ΔB−)=0\varphi \left(A^{+} \Delta B^{+}\right)= \varphi \left(A^{-} \Delta B^{-}\right)=0.

?
Problem 9.1.4

The Jordan decomposition of an additive set function φ\varphi is unique.

?
Problem 9.1.5

This problem relates somewhat the notion of absolute continuity with the familiar ε−δ\varepsilon -\delta concepts.

?
(a)

Let μ\mu and vv denote measures with common domain F\mathcal{F} and such that vv is finite. Then v≪μv \ll \mu iff for every ε>0\varepsilon >0 there is δ>0\delta >0 such that μ(A)<δ\mu (A)<\delta forces v(A)<εv(A)<\varepsilon.

(b)

The claim in (a) is not necessarily true if vv is infinite, since the condition v≪μv \ll \mu does not imply the ε−δ\varepsilon -\delta condition.

Problem 9.1.6

Let μ,v,v1\mu , v, v_{1}, and v2v_{2} denote measures, each having common domain F\mathcal{F}.

?
(a)

If v1⊥μv_{1} \perp \mu and v2⊥μv_{2} \perp \mu, then v1+v2⊥μv_{1}+v_{2} \perp \mu.

(b)

If v1≪μv_{1} \ll \mu and v2≪μv_{2} \ll \mu, then v1+v2≪μv_{1}+v_{2} \ll \mu.

(c)

If v1≪μv_{1} \ll \mu and v2⊥μv_{2} \perp \mu, then v1⊥v2v_{1} \perp v_{2}.

(d)

If v≪μv \ll \mu and v⊥μv \perp \mu, then v=0v=0.

(e)

If μ⊥μ\mu \perp \mu, then μ=0\mu =0.

(f)

If μ\mu and vv are σ\sigma-finite with v≪μv \ll \mu, then v({ω∈Ω:dv dμ(ω)=0})=0v\left(\left\{ \omega \in \Omega : \frac{\mathrm{d} v}{\mathrm{~ d} \mu }(\omega )=0\right\} \right)=0.

Problem 9.1.7

Claim 1 may be generalized to the following claim: if {En}n=1∞\left\{ E_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } is a sequence of F\mathcal{F}-sets such that lim⁡En\lim E_{n} exists [i.e. lim⁡‾En=lim⁡‾En\overline{\lim } E_{n}=\underline{\lim } E_{n}], then lim⁡φ(En)=φ(lim⁡En)\lim \varphi \left(E_{n}\right)=\varphi \left(\lim E_{n}\right).

Claim 1 (Chapter 9). Let φ\varphi denote an additive set function on F\mathcal{F}.

?
(a)

If {En}n=1∞\left\{ E_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } is a nondecreasing sequence of F\mathcal{F}-sets with limit EE, then lim⁡nφ(En)=φ(E)\lim_{n} \varphi \left(E_{n}\right)=\varphi (E).

(b)

If {En}n=1∞\left\{ E_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } is a nonincreasing sequence of F\mathcal{F}-sets with limit EE, then lim⁡nφ(En)=φ(E)\lim_{n} \varphi \left(E_{n}\right)=\varphi (E).

Remark.
?

Write φ=φ+−φ−\varphi =\varphi^{+}-\varphi^{-}for the Jordan decomposition of φ\varphi, and recall that φ+\varphi^{+}and φ−\varphi^{-}are finite measures.

Problem 9.1.8

Let f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Define ν(E)=∫Ef dμ\nu (E)=\int_{E} f \mathrm{~ d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathscr {F}.

?
(a)

vv is an additive set function such that v+(E)=∫Ef+dμv^{+}(E)=\int_{E} f^{+} \mathrm{d} \mu and v−(E)=∫Ef−dμv^{-}(E)= \int_{E} f^{-} \mathrm{d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}.

(b)

If A+={ω∈Ω:f(ω)>0}A^{+}=\left\{ \omega \in \Omega : f(\omega )>0\right\} and A−=A+cA^{-}=A^{+c}, then ( A+,A−A^{+}, A^{-}) is a Hahn decomposition with respect to vv.

Problem 9.1.9

Let M\mathfrak {M} denote the collection of additive set functions φ\varphi with domain F\mathcal{F}.

?
(a)

M\mathfrak {M} is a linear space over R\mathbb {R} : for a,b∈Ra, b \in \mathbb {R} and φ1,φ2∈M\varphi_{1}, \varphi_{2} \in \mathfrak {M} we have aφ1+bφ2∈Ma \varphi_{1}+b \varphi_{2} \in \mathfrak {M}.

(b)

Given φ∈M\varphi \in \mathfrak {M}, define ∥φ∥=φ+(Ω)+φ−(Ω)\left\| \varphi \right\| =\varphi^{+}(\Omega )+\varphi^{-}(\Omega ), where φ=φ+−φ−\varphi =\varphi^{+}-\varphi^{-}is the Jordan decomposition of φ\varphi. Then ∥∥\| \| is a norm on M\mathfrak {M}.

(c)

Is M a Banach space?

Problem 9.1.10

Let ( A+,A−A^{+}, A^{-}) denote a Hahn decomposition of the additive set function φ\varphi, and let φ=φ+−φ−\varphi =\varphi^{+}-\varphi^{-}denote the Jordan decomposition. We have

φ+(A)=sup⁡{φ(E):E∈F,E⊆A}φ−(A)=−inf⁡{φ(E):E∈F,E⊆A} \begin{aligned} \varphi ^{+}(A) & =\sup \left\{ \varphi (E): E \in \mathscr {F}, E \subseteq A\right\} \\ \varphi ^{-}(A) & =-\inf \left\{ \varphi (E): E \in \mathscr {F}, E \subseteq A\right\} \end{aligned}

for every A∈FA \in \mathcal{F}.

?
Problem 9.1.11

The Radon-Nikodym Theorem may fail if μ\mu is not σ\sigma-finite, even if vv is finite.

?
Remark.
?

Let Ω\Omega be uncountable, let F={A⊆Ω:A is amc or Ac is amc}\mathcal{F}=\left\{ A \subseteq \Omega : A \text{ is amc or } A^{c} \text{ is amc}\right\}, let μ\mu denote counting measure, and let v(A)=1v(A)=1 or 00 as AcA^{c} is amc or AA is amc. In particular, v({ω})=0v\left(\left\{ \omega \right\} \right)=0 for every ω∈Ω\omega \in \Omega. If there is an ff satisfying the conclusion of the Radon-Nikodym Theorem, then for every ω∈Ω\omega \in \Omega we have 0=v({ω})=∫{ω}f dμ=f(ω)0=v\left(\left\{ \omega \right\} \right)=\int_{\left\{ \omega \right\} } f \, \mathrm{d} \mu =f(\omega ), giving f=0f=0 on Ω\Omega. (Recall Exercise 7 from Section 6.2.) Then 1=v(Ω)=∫f dμ=01=v(\Omega )=\int f \, \mathrm{d} \mu =0, a contradiction.

Problem 9.1.12

Let μ,v,v1,v2\mu , v, v_{1}, v_{2} and ρ\rho denote σ\sigma-finite measures having domain F\mathcal{F}. We have the following claims.

?
(a)

If ν1≪μ\nu_{1} \ll \mu and ν2≪μ\nu_{2} \ll \mu, then d(ν1±ν2)/dμ=dν1/dμ±dν2/dμμ\mathrm{d}\left(\nu_{1} \pm \nu_{2}\right) / \mathrm{d} \mu =\mathrm{d} \nu_{1} / \mathrm{d} \mu \pm \mathrm{d} \nu_{2} / \mathrm{d} \mu \mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega.

(b)

If v≪μv \ll \mu and μ≪ρ\mu \ll \rho, then v≪ρv \ll \rho and dv dρ=dv dμ dμ dρμ\frac{\mathrm{d} v}{\mathrm{~ d} \rho }=\frac{\mathrm{d} v}{\mathrm{~ d} \mu } \frac{\mathrm{~ d} \mu }{\mathrm{~ d} \rho } \mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega.

(c)

If ν≪μ\nu \ll \mu and μ≪ν\mu \ll \nu, then dνdμ=  1[dμ/dν>0]×1 dμ/dνμ\frac{\mathrm{d} \nu }{\mathrm{d} \mu }=\; \mathbb {1}_{\left[\mathrm{d} \mu / \mathrm{d} \nu >0\right]} \times \frac{1}{\mathrm{~ d} \mu / \mathrm{d} \nu } \mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega.

(d)

Let μ≪ρ\mu \ll \rho and v≪ρv \ll \rho. Then v≪μv \ll \mu if and only if ρ[dv dρ>0, dμ dρ>0]=0\rho \left[\frac{\mathrm{d} v}{\mathrm{~ d} \rho }>0, \frac{\mathrm{~ d} \mu }{\mathrm{~ d} \rho }>0\right]=0, in which case we have

dv dμ=  1[dμ/dρ>0]×dv/dρ dμ/dρμ -a.e. on Ω.  \frac{\mathrm{d} v}{\mathrm{~ d} \mu }=\; \mathbb {1}_{\left[\mathrm{d} \mu / \mathrm{d} \rho >0\right]} \times \frac{\mathrm{d} v / \mathrm{d} \rho }{\mathrm{~ d} \mu / \mathrm{d} \rho } \quad \mu \text{ -a.e. on } \Omega \text{. }
Problem 9.1.13

Let μ\mu and vv denote finite measures with domain F\mathcal{F}. Let H⊆F\mathcal{H} \subseteq \mathcal{F} denote a sub-σ\sigma-field of F\mathcal{F}. Let μ∗\mu^{*}and v∗v^{*}denote the restrictions of μ\mu and vv to H\mathcal{H}. In accordance with the Lebesgue Decomposition Theorem, let vacv_{\mathrm{ac}} and vsv_{\mathrm{s}} denote the absolutely continuous and singular parts of vv with respect to μ\mu. Similarly, let vac∗v_{\mathrm{ac}}^{*}and vs∗v_{\mathrm{s}}^{*}denote the absolutely continuous and singular parts of v∗v^{*}with respect to μ∗\mu^{*}. Then

vac∗(E)⩾vac(E) and vs∗(E)⩽vs(E) for every E∈H. v_{\mathrm{ac}}^{*}(E) \geqslant v_{\mathrm{ac}}(E) \quad \text{ and } \quad v_{\mathrm{s}}^{*}(E) \leqslant v_{\mathrm{s}}(E) \quad \text{ for every } E \in \mathcal{H}.
?
Remark.
?

Refer to the proof of the finite version of the Radon-Nikodym Theorem, letting ff be nonnegative, finite, and such that vac(E)=∫Ef dμv_{\mathrm{ac}}(E)=\int_{E} f \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}. Also note that vs=v−vacv_{\mathrm{s}}=v-v_{\mathrm{ac}}. We have v∗≪μ∗v^{*} \ll \mu^{*}, hence there is a nonnegative finite-valued f∗f^{*}with v∗(E)=∫Ef∗ dμ+vs∗(E)v^{*}(E)=\int_{E} f^{*} \, \mathrm{d} \mu +v_{\mathrm{s}}^{*}(E) for every E∈HE \in \mathcal{H}. Find S∗∈HS^{*} \in \mathcal{H} such that vs∗(S∗c)=0v_{\mathrm{s}}^{*}\left(S^{* c}\right)=0 and μ∗(S∗)=μ(S∗)=0\mu^{*}\left(S^{*}\right)=\mu \left(S^{*}\right)=0, so that vs∗v_{\mathrm{s}}^{*}and μ\mu have disjoint supports.

Problem 9.1.14

Let μ\mu and vv denote finite measures with domain F\mathcal{F}. Let {vn}n=1∞\left\{ v_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } denote a sequence of finite measures with domain ff such that v=∑n=1∞vnv=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty } v_{n}. Assume for each n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N} and A∈FA \in \mathcal{F} that

vn(A)=∫Afn dμ+vn′(A), v_{n}(A)=\int _{A} f_{n} \, \mathrm{d} \mu +v_{n}^{\prime }(A),

where each fnf_{n} is a nonnegative finite-valued function on Ω\Omega and each vn′v_{n}^{\prime }is singular with respect to μ\mu. Finally, assume for each A∈FA \in \mathcal{F} that

v(A)=∫Af dμ+v′(A), v(A)=\int _{A} f \, \mathrm{d} \mu +v^{\prime }(A),

where ff is a nonnegative finite-valued function on Ω\Omega and v′⊥μv^{\prime } \perp \mu.

?
(a)

f=∑n=1∞fnf=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty } f_{n} μ\mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega.

(b)

v′=∑n=1∞vn′v^{\prime }=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty } v_{n}^{\prime }.

(c)

v≪μv \ll \mu iff vn≪μv_{n} \ll \mu for every n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N}.

Problem 9.1.15

Suppose that μ\mu and vv are σ\sigma-finite measures on F\mathcal{F}. The Lebesgue decomposition of vv with respect to μ\mu is unique. That is, if v=vac+vsv=v_{\mathrm{ac}}+v_{\mathrm{s}} where vacv_{\mathrm{ac}} and vsv_{\mathrm{s}} are σ\sigma-finite measures with vac≪μv_{\mathrm{ac}} \ll \mu and vs⊥μv_{\mathrm{s}} \perp \mu, and if in addition ν=νac′+νs′\nu =\nu_{\mathrm{ac}}^{\prime }+\nu_{\mathrm{s}}^{\prime } where νac′\nu_{\mathrm{ac}}^{\prime } and νs′\nu_{\mathrm{s}}^{\prime } are σ\sigma-finite measures with νac′≪μ\nu_{\mathrm{ac}}^{\prime } \ll \mu and νs′⊥μ\nu_{\mathrm{s}}^{\prime } \perp \mu, then νac=νac′\nu_{\mathrm{ac}}=\nu_{\mathrm{ac}}^{\prime } and νs=νs′\nu_{\mathrm{s}}=\nu_{\mathrm{s}}^{\prime }.

?
Problem 9.1.16

Let μ\mu and vv denote measures with domain F\mathcal{F} and such that v(E)⩽μ(E)v(E) \leqslant \mu (E) for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}. Let 0<p<+∞0<p<+\infty and f∈Lp(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{p}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Then ∫∣f∣p dv⩽∫∣f∣p dμ\int \left|f\right|^{p} \, \mathrm{d} v \leqslant \int \left|f\right|^{p} \, \mathrm{d} \mu, so that f∈Lp(Ω,F,v)f \in L^{p}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, v).

?
Remark.
?

Let s=∑i=1nciIAis=\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_{i} I_{A_{i}}, where c1,⋯ ,cnc_{1}, \cdots , c_{n} are nonnegative real numbers and A1,⋯ ,AnA_{1}, \cdots , A_{n} are disjoint F\mathcal{F}-sets with union Ω\Omega. Then ∣s∣p=∑i=1ncipIAi\left|s\right|^{p}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_{i}^{p} I_{A_{i}}, and

∫∣s∣p dv=∑i=1ncipv(Ai)⩽∑i=1ncipμ(Ai)=∫∣s∣p dμ, \int \left|s\right|^{p} \, \mathrm{d} v=\sum _{i=1}^{n} c_{i}^{p} v\left(A_{i}\right) \leqslant \sum _{i=1}^{n} c_{i}^{p} \mu \left(A_{i}\right)=\int \left|s\right|^{p} \, \mathrm{d} \mu ,

so the result holds for nonnegative finite-valued F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable simple functions defined on Ω\Omega. Next, let f⩾0f \geqslant 0 be defined on Ω\Omega and F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable. Let {sn}n=1∞\left\{ s_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } denote a nondecreasing sequence of nonnegative finite-valued F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable simple functions defined on Ω\Omega with lim⁡sn=f\lim s_{n}=f. By what we have just shown and MCT,

∫fp dv=lim⁡∫snp dv⩽lim⁡∫snp dμ=∫fp dμ. \int f^{p} \, \mathrm{d} v=\lim \int s_{n}^{p} \, \mathrm{d} v \leqslant \lim \int s_{n}^{p} \, \mathrm{d} \mu =\int f^{p} \, \mathrm{d} \mu .

For general f∈Lp(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{p}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ), write f=f+−f−f=f^{+}-f^{-}.

Problem 9.1.17

Let μ\mu and vv denote finite measures with common domain F\mathcal{F}. Let g∈L1(Ω,F,μ+v)g \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v). Then gg is in both L1(Ω,F,μ)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) and L1(Ω,F,v)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, v) and

∫g dv+∫g dμ=∫g d(μ+v). \int g \, \mathrm{d} v+\int g \, \mathrm{d} \mu =\int g \, \mathrm{d}(\mu +v).
?
Remark.
?

Observe that μ,v⩽μ+v\mu , v \leqslant \mu +v; use Exercise 16 to obtain that gg is in both L1(Ω,F,μ)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) and L1(Ω,F,v)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, v). Establish the formula by first considering simple functions. Use MCT and the formula for simple functions to get the result for nonnegative functions. For general functions g∈L1(Ω,F,μ+v)g \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v), consider positive and negative parts and apply the result for nonnegative functions. This will all be very straightforward.

Problem 9.1.18

This exercise relies on Exercise 17, which in turn relies on Exercise 16. Let μ\mu and vv denote finite measures with common domain F\mathcal{F} and such that v≪μv \ll \mu. There exists F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable gg defined on Ω\Omega with 0⩽g<10 \leqslant g<1 and such that

∫f(1−g) dv=∫fg dμ for every f∈L2(Ω,F,μ+v). \int f(1-g) \, \mathrm{d} v=\int f g \, \mathrm{d} \mu \quad \text{ for every } f \in L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v).
?
Remark.
?

For f∈L2(Ω,F,μ+v)f \in L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v), define L(f)=∫f dvL(f)=\int f \, \mathrm{d} v. The finiteness of μ\mu and vv forces the finiteness of μ+v\mu +v, and hence f∈L1(Ω,F,μ+v)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v) by Claim 1 of Section 8.5. Since v⩽μ+vv \leqslant \mu +v, the previous exercise gives f∈L1(Ω,F,v)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, v), hence LL is meaningfully defined and finite on L2(Ω,F,μ+v)L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v). It is easy to verify that LL is linear. Using Hölder's Inequality with p=p′=2p=p^{\prime }=2 for the functions ff and 11, we have for every f∈L2(Ω,F,μ+v)f \in L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v) that

∣L(f)∣=∣∫f dv∣⩽(∫∣f∣2 dv)12(∫12 dv)12⩽(∫∣f∣2 d(μ+v))12v(Ω)12=∥f∥2v(Ω)12 \begin{aligned} \left|L(f)\right|=\left|\int f \, \mathrm{d} v\right| & \leqslant \left(\int \left|f\right|^{2} \, \mathrm{d} v\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\int 1^{2} \, \mathrm{d} v\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \\ & \leqslant \left(\int \left|f\right|^{2} \, \mathrm{d}(\mu +v)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} v(\Omega )^{\frac{1}{2}} \\ & =\left\| f\right\| _{2} v(\Omega )^{\frac{1}{2}} \end{aligned}

by virtue of the previous exercise (∥⋅∥2\left\| \cdot \right\|_{2} denotes the norm on L2(Ω,F,μ+v)L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v)). It follows that LL is a bounded linear functional on L2(Ω,F,μ+v)L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v). The Riesz Representation Theorem for p=2p=2 asserts the existence of a function hh in L2(Ω,F,μ+v)L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v) such that

L(f)=∫f dv=∫fh d(μ+v) for every f∈L2(Ω,F,μ+v). L(f)=\int f \, \mathrm{d} v=\int f h \, \mathrm{d}(\mu +v) \quad \text{ for every } f \in L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v).

If hh is negative on some B∈FB \in \mathcal{F} with (μ+v)(B)>0(\mu +v)(B)>0, then L(IB)=v(B)⩾0L\left(I_{B}\right)=v(B) \geqslant 0, but at the same time we have L(IB)=∫IB dv=∫IBh d(μ+v)=∫Bh d(μ+v)<0L\left(I_{B}\right)=\int I_{B} \, \mathrm{d} v=\int I_{B} h \, \mathrm{d}(\mu +v)=\int_{B} h \, \mathrm{d}(\mu +v)<0, a contradiction. Therefore, if hh is negative on some B∈FB \in \mathcal{F}, then (μ+v)(B)=0(\mu +v)(B)=0, that is, h⩾0h \geqslant 0 (μ+v)(\mu +v)-a.e. on Ω\Omega. Next, observe by the previous display and Exercise 17 that

∫f(1−h) dv=∫f dv−∫fh dv=∫fh d(μ+v)−∫fh dv=∫fh dμ \int f(1-h) \, \mathrm{d} v=\int f \, \mathrm{d} v-\int f h \, \mathrm{d} v=\int f h \, \mathrm{d}(\mu +v)-\int f h \, \mathrm{d} v=\int f h \, \mathrm{d} \mu

for every f∈L2(Ω,F,μ+v)f \in L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v). Let E={ω∈Ω:h(ω)⩾1}E=\left\{ \omega \in \Omega : h(\omega ) \geqslant 1\right\}. Then we have IE∈L1(Ω,F,μ+v)I_{E} \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v), and the previous display with f=IEf=I_{E} gives

0⩽μ(E)=∫IE dμ⩽∫IEh dμ=∫IE(1−h) dv⩽0, 0 \leqslant \mu (E)=\int I_{E} \, \mathrm{d} \mu \leqslant \int I_{E} h \, \mathrm{d} \mu =\int I_{E}(1-h) \, \mathrm{d} v \leqslant 0,

hence μ(E)=0\mu (E)=0. The assumption v≪μv \ll \mu gives v(E)=0v(E)=0. (This is the only time that the assumption v≪μv \ll \mu is used.) If g=hIEcg=h I_{E^{c}}, then

∫f(1−g) dv=∫f dv−∫(fIEc)h dv=∫fh d(μ+v)−∫(fIEc)h dv=∫(fIEc)h d(μ+v)−∫(fIEc)h dv=∫(fIEc)h dμ[Exercise 16]=∫fg dμ. \begin{aligned} \int f(1-g) \, \mathrm{d} v=\int f \, \mathrm{d} v-\int \left(f I_{E^{c}}\right) h \, \mathrm{d} v & =\int f h \, \mathrm{d}(\mu +v)-\int \left(f I_{E^{c}}\right) h \, \mathrm{d} v \\ & =\int \left(f I_{E^{c}}\right) h \, \mathrm{d}(\mu +v)-\int \left(f I_{E^{c}}\right) h \, \mathrm{d} v \\ & =\int \left(f I_{E^{c}}\right) h \, \mathrm{d} \mu \qquad [\text{Exercise 16}] \\ & =\int f g \, \mathrm{d} \mu . \end{aligned}

Therefore, we may take g=hIEcg=h I_{E^{c}} to complete the proof.

Problem 9.1.19

Use Exercise 18 [which relies on Exercises 16 and 17] to prove the finite version of the Radon-Nikodym Theorem: Let μ\mu and vv denote finite measures with domain F\mathcal{F} and such that v≪μv \ll \mu. Then there exists a nonnegative finite-valued F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable function g∗g^{*} on Ω\Omega such that v(E)=∫Eg∗ dμv(E)=\int_{E} g^{*} \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}.

?
Remark.
?

Let f⩾0f \geqslant 0 be bounded, and let gg be as in Exercise 18. Since ff and gg are bounded and μ+v\mu +v is finite, it follows for every n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N} that (1+g+⋯+gn−1)f∈L2(Ω,F,μ+v)\left(1+g+\cdots +g^{n-1}\right) f \in L^{2}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu +v). Using Exercise 18 we obtain

∫(1+g+⋯+gn−1)f(1−g) dv=∫(1+g+⋯+gn−1)fg dμ for every n∈N. \int \left(1+g+\cdots +g^{n-1}\right) f(1-g) \, \mathrm{d} v=\int \left(1+g+\cdots +g^{n-1}\right) f g \, \mathrm{d} \mu \quad \text{ for every } n \in \mathbb {N}.

Since 0⩽g<10 \leqslant g<1, this gives ∫(1−gn)f dv=∫g1−g(1−gn)f dμ\int \left(1-g^{n}\right) f \, \mathrm{d} v=\int \frac{g}{1-g}\left(1-g^{n}\right) f \, \mathrm{d} \mu for each n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N}. Using MCT and the fact that 0⩽g<10 \leqslant g<1 gives

∫f dv=∫lim⁡n(1−gn)f dv=lim⁡n∫(1−gn)f dv=lim⁡n∫g1−g(1−gn)f dμ=∫lim⁡ng1−g(1−gn)f dμ=∫g1−gf dμ. \begin{aligned} \int f \, \mathrm{d} v=\int \lim _{n}\left(1-g^{n}\right) f \, \mathrm{d} v & =\lim _{n} \int \left(1-g^{n}\right) f \, \mathrm{d} v \\ & =\lim _{n} \int \frac{g}{1-g}\left(1-g^{n}\right) f \, \mathrm{d} \mu \\ & =\int \lim _{n} \frac{g}{1-g}\left(1-g^{n}\right) f \, \mathrm{d} \mu \\ & =\int \frac{g}{1-g} f \, \mathrm{d} \mu . \end{aligned}

In particular, if f=1f=1, then v(Ω)=∫g1−g dμv(\Omega )=\int \frac{g}{1-g} \, \mathrm{d} \mu, hence the finiteness of vv forces g1−g∈L1(Ω,F,μ)\frac{g}{1-g} \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ), so g1−g\frac{g}{1-g} may be taken to be finite on all of Ω\Omega. Clearly g1−g\frac{g}{1-g} is nonnegative. Write g∗=g1−gg^{*}=\frac{g}{1-g} and let f=IEf=I_{E}, where E∈FE \in \mathcal{F} is arbitrary. We have from the chain of equalities above that v(E)=∫Eg∗ dμv(E)=\int_{E} g^{*} \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}, so g∗g^{*} satisfies the conclusion of the finite version of the Radon-Nikodym Theorem. The proof for the uniqueness of g∗g^{*} as given in the text of course works here --- the real work is in showing the existence, not uniqueness.

Problem 9.1.20

Let μ0,μ1\mu_{0}, \mu_{1}, and μ2\mu_{2} denote finite measures. Assume that

dμ0=f1 d(μ0+μ1)=f2 d(μ0+μ2)=f d(μ0+μ1+μ2). \mathrm{d} \mu _{0}=f_{1} \mathrm{~ d}\left(\mu _{0}+\mu _{1}\right)=f_{2} \mathrm{~ d}\left(\mu _{0}+\mu _{2}\right)=f \mathrm{~ d}\left(\mu _{0}+\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}\right).

Then we have for (μ0+μ1+μ2)\left(\mu_{0}+\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}\right)-a.e. ω∈Ω\omega \in \Omega that

f(ω)={f1(ω)f2(ω)f1(ω)+f2(ω)−f1(ω)f2(ω) if f1(ω)f2(ω)≠0,0 if f1(ω)f2(ω)=0. f(\omega )= \begin{cases} \dfrac {f_{1}(\omega ) f_{2}(\omega )}{f_{1}(\omega )+f_{2}(\omega )-f_{1}(\omega ) f_{2}(\omega )} & \text{ if } f_{1}(\omega ) f_{2}(\omega ) \neq 0, \\ 0 & \text{ if } f_{1}(\omega ) f_{2}(\omega )=0. \end{cases}
?
Remark.
?

This exercise and Exercise 21 are taken from Section 32 of Halmos' Measure Theory. For Exercise 21 [which is not terribly difficult], recall the discussion on notation found at the end of that section. Exercise 21 requires the solution of Exercise 12(b).

Problem 9.1.21

Let {vn}n=1∞\left\{ v_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } and {μn}n=1∞\left\{ \mu_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } denote sequences of finite measures with domain F\mathcal{F}. For each n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N} define μˉn=∑i=1nμi\bar{\mu }_{n}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mu_{i} and vˉn=∑i=1nvi\bar{v}_{n}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} v_{i}. Define μ=∑n=1∞μn\mu =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty } \mu_{n} and v=∑n=1∞vnv=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty } v_{n}, and further assume that both μ\mu and vv are finite. The goal is to prove the following: If vn≪μnv_{n} \ll \mu_{n} for every n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N}, then v≪μv \ll \mu and lim⁡ndvˉndμˉn=dvdμ\lim_{n} \frac{\mathrm{d} \bar{v}_{n}}{\mathrm{d} \bar{\mu }_{n}}=\frac{\mathrm{d} v}{\mathrm{d} \mu } μ\mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega. Follow Halmos' outline given below.

?
(a)

If {En}n=1∞\left\{ E_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } is a sequence of F\mathcal{F}-sets with μˉn(En)=0\bar{\mu }_{n}\left(E_{n}\right)=0 for every n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N}, then μ(lim⁡‾En)=0\mu \left(\overline{\lim } E_{n}\right)=0.

(b)

If {ϕn}n=1∞\left\{ \phi_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } and {ψn}n=1∞\left\{ \psi_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } are sequences of F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable functions on Ω\Omega such that ϕn=ψn\phi_{n}=\psi_{n} μn\mu_{n}-a.e. on Ω\Omega for every n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N}, then

lim⁡n‾ϕn=lim⁡n‾ψn and lim⁡n‾ϕn=lim⁡n‾ψnμ-a.e. on Ω. \overline{\lim _{n}} \phi _{n}=\overline{\lim _{n}} \psi _{n} \quad \text{ and } \quad \underline{\lim _{n}} \phi _{n}=\underline{\lim _{n}} \psi _{n} \quad \mu \text{-a.e. on } \Omega .
(c)

From (b), it is sufficient to prove the main claim for any fixed determination of the Radon-Nikodym derivatives {dvndμn}n=1∞\left\{ \frac{\mathrm{d} v_{n}}{\mathrm{d} \mu_{n}}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty }. For each n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N}, write fn=dvndμf_{n}=\frac{\mathrm{d} v_{n}}{\mathrm{d} \mu } and gn=dμndμg_{n}=\frac{\mathrm{d} \mu_{n}}{\mathrm{d} \mu }. From Exercise 12(b), one such determination is

dvˉndμ=f1+⋯+fng1+⋯+gnμn-a.e. on Ω, n∈N. \frac{\mathrm{d} \bar{v}_{n}}{\mathrm{d} \mu }=\frac{f_{1}+\cdots +f_{n}}{g_{1}+\cdots +g_{n}} \quad \mu _{n}\text{-a.e. on } \Omega , \, n \in \mathbb {N}.
(d)

We have ∑n=1∞fn=dvdμ\sum_{n=1}^{\infty } f_{n}=\frac{\mathrm{d} v}{\mathrm{d} \mu } and ∑n=1∞gn=1\sum_{n=1}^{\infty } g_{n}=1, both equalities holding μ\mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega.

(e)

Part (d) directly implies the main claim of this exercise.