Why is any Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure on $(mathbbR,mathcalB_mathbbR)$ not complete?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $F: mathbbR to mathbbR$ be any increasing, right-continuous function. Then we define the Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure associated to $F$ to be the unique measure $mu_F$ on $(mathbbR,mathcalB_mathbbR)$ such that $mu_F((a.b])=F(b)-F(a)$ for all $a, b$.



We wish to show that the completion of $mathcalB_mathbbR$ with respect to $mu_F$, denoted by $M_F$, is strictly larger than $mathcalB_mathbbR$.



Since $textcard(mathcalB_mathbbR)=mathfrakc$, it will suffice to exhibit a set $K$ in $M_F$ such that $mu_F(K)=0$ and $textcard(K)=mathfrakc$, for then $textcard(M_F)>mathfrakc$.










share|cite|improve this question





















  • Do you understand why the usual measure on the Borel algebra of $mathbbR$ is not complete?
    – Kevin Carlson
    May 31 '14 at 12:39











  • Yes, so I just used pretty much the same argument, thanks!
    – Aubrey
    May 31 '14 at 12:42














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $F: mathbbR to mathbbR$ be any increasing, right-continuous function. Then we define the Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure associated to $F$ to be the unique measure $mu_F$ on $(mathbbR,mathcalB_mathbbR)$ such that $mu_F((a.b])=F(b)-F(a)$ for all $a, b$.



We wish to show that the completion of $mathcalB_mathbbR$ with respect to $mu_F$, denoted by $M_F$, is strictly larger than $mathcalB_mathbbR$.



Since $textcard(mathcalB_mathbbR)=mathfrakc$, it will suffice to exhibit a set $K$ in $M_F$ such that $mu_F(K)=0$ and $textcard(K)=mathfrakc$, for then $textcard(M_F)>mathfrakc$.










share|cite|improve this question





















  • Do you understand why the usual measure on the Borel algebra of $mathbbR$ is not complete?
    – Kevin Carlson
    May 31 '14 at 12:39











  • Yes, so I just used pretty much the same argument, thanks!
    – Aubrey
    May 31 '14 at 12:42












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Let $F: mathbbR to mathbbR$ be any increasing, right-continuous function. Then we define the Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure associated to $F$ to be the unique measure $mu_F$ on $(mathbbR,mathcalB_mathbbR)$ such that $mu_F((a.b])=F(b)-F(a)$ for all $a, b$.



We wish to show that the completion of $mathcalB_mathbbR$ with respect to $mu_F$, denoted by $M_F$, is strictly larger than $mathcalB_mathbbR$.



Since $textcard(mathcalB_mathbbR)=mathfrakc$, it will suffice to exhibit a set $K$ in $M_F$ such that $mu_F(K)=0$ and $textcard(K)=mathfrakc$, for then $textcard(M_F)>mathfrakc$.










share|cite|improve this question













Let $F: mathbbR to mathbbR$ be any increasing, right-continuous function. Then we define the Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure associated to $F$ to be the unique measure $mu_F$ on $(mathbbR,mathcalB_mathbbR)$ such that $mu_F((a.b])=F(b)-F(a)$ for all $a, b$.



We wish to show that the completion of $mathcalB_mathbbR$ with respect to $mu_F$, denoted by $M_F$, is strictly larger than $mathcalB_mathbbR$.



Since $textcard(mathcalB_mathbbR)=mathfrakc$, it will suffice to exhibit a set $K$ in $M_F$ such that $mu_F(K)=0$ and $textcard(K)=mathfrakc$, for then $textcard(M_F)>mathfrakc$.







measure-theory lebesgue-measure






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked May 31 '14 at 12:35









Aubrey

699414




699414











  • Do you understand why the usual measure on the Borel algebra of $mathbbR$ is not complete?
    – Kevin Carlson
    May 31 '14 at 12:39











  • Yes, so I just used pretty much the same argument, thanks!
    – Aubrey
    May 31 '14 at 12:42
















  • Do you understand why the usual measure on the Borel algebra of $mathbbR$ is not complete?
    – Kevin Carlson
    May 31 '14 at 12:39











  • Yes, so I just used pretty much the same argument, thanks!
    – Aubrey
    May 31 '14 at 12:42















Do you understand why the usual measure on the Borel algebra of $mathbbR$ is not complete?
– Kevin Carlson
May 31 '14 at 12:39





Do you understand why the usual measure on the Borel algebra of $mathbbR$ is not complete?
– Kevin Carlson
May 31 '14 at 12:39













Yes, so I just used pretty much the same argument, thanks!
– Aubrey
May 31 '14 at 12:42




Yes, so I just used pretty much the same argument, thanks!
– Aubrey
May 31 '14 at 12:42










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










We mimic the construction of the Cantor set. For any interval $I$, let us call an open subinterval $J$ of $I$ with $mu_F(J)geqmu_F(I)/2$ and endpoints in the interior of $I$ an "open middle superhalf" of $I$. Observe that, since it is increasing, $F$ has only countably many points of discontinuity. Let $K_1$ be a closed interval with endpoints where $F$ is continuous, and $K_n+1$ be obtained by removing from each of the intervals comprising $K_n$ an open middle superhalf at whose endpoints $F$ is continuous. Then one can check that $K=bigcap_1^inftyK_n$ has the desired properties.






share|cite|improve this answer






















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f815949%2fwhy-is-any-lebesgue-stieltjes-measure-on-mathbbr-mathcalb-mathbbr-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    We mimic the construction of the Cantor set. For any interval $I$, let us call an open subinterval $J$ of $I$ with $mu_F(J)geqmu_F(I)/2$ and endpoints in the interior of $I$ an "open middle superhalf" of $I$. Observe that, since it is increasing, $F$ has only countably many points of discontinuity. Let $K_1$ be a closed interval with endpoints where $F$ is continuous, and $K_n+1$ be obtained by removing from each of the intervals comprising $K_n$ an open middle superhalf at whose endpoints $F$ is continuous. Then one can check that $K=bigcap_1^inftyK_n$ has the desired properties.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      We mimic the construction of the Cantor set. For any interval $I$, let us call an open subinterval $J$ of $I$ with $mu_F(J)geqmu_F(I)/2$ and endpoints in the interior of $I$ an "open middle superhalf" of $I$. Observe that, since it is increasing, $F$ has only countably many points of discontinuity. Let $K_1$ be a closed interval with endpoints where $F$ is continuous, and $K_n+1$ be obtained by removing from each of the intervals comprising $K_n$ an open middle superhalf at whose endpoints $F$ is continuous. Then one can check that $K=bigcap_1^inftyK_n$ has the desired properties.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted






        We mimic the construction of the Cantor set. For any interval $I$, let us call an open subinterval $J$ of $I$ with $mu_F(J)geqmu_F(I)/2$ and endpoints in the interior of $I$ an "open middle superhalf" of $I$. Observe that, since it is increasing, $F$ has only countably many points of discontinuity. Let $K_1$ be a closed interval with endpoints where $F$ is continuous, and $K_n+1$ be obtained by removing from each of the intervals comprising $K_n$ an open middle superhalf at whose endpoints $F$ is continuous. Then one can check that $K=bigcap_1^inftyK_n$ has the desired properties.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        We mimic the construction of the Cantor set. For any interval $I$, let us call an open subinterval $J$ of $I$ with $mu_F(J)geqmu_F(I)/2$ and endpoints in the interior of $I$ an "open middle superhalf" of $I$. Observe that, since it is increasing, $F$ has only countably many points of discontinuity. Let $K_1$ be a closed interval with endpoints where $F$ is continuous, and $K_n+1$ be obtained by removing from each of the intervals comprising $K_n$ an open middle superhalf at whose endpoints $F$ is continuous. Then one can check that $K=bigcap_1^inftyK_n$ has the desired properties.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jun 2 '14 at 5:52

























        answered May 31 '14 at 12:41









        Aubrey

        699414




        699414



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f815949%2fwhy-is-any-lebesgue-stieltjes-measure-on-mathbbr-mathcalb-mathbbr-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Mutual Information Always Non-negative

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?