Completion of $mathbb{E}$ by $mathbb{N}_mu$ regarding Lebesgue measure - are my arguments valid












0














I have the measure space $(X,mathbb{E},mu)$ where $mathbb{E}$ is a $sigma$-algebra on $X$ and $mu$ is the Lebesgue measure.



I have that
$$mathbb{N}_mu={Esubseteq X; |; text{there exist }Einmathbb{E};text{so};Nsubseteq E;;text{and};mu(E)=0}inmathbb{N}_mu},$$
so is the following argumentation valid:



The enlargement of $mathbb{E}$ with respect to $mu$ is:
$$mathbb{E}_mu=mathbb{E}cupmathbb{N}_mu,$$
so
$$mathbb{E}subseteq mathbb{E}_muquadquadtext{and}quadquadmathbb{N}_musubseteq mathbb{E}_mu$$
as
$mathbb{E}=mathbb{E}_mu$ ${mathbb{N}_mu}$ and $mathbb{N}_mu=mathbb{E}_mu$ ${mathbb{E}}$.






measure-theory lebesgue-measure







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    I misunderstood what you did, yes this is basically correct.
    – Ian
    Dec 1 at 18:58












  • Except there are some places where you are sloppy...for example you really want to add sets $B$ such that there is a measurable set $A$ and a measurable set $C$ with $mu(C)=0$ and $B setminus A subseteq C$.
    – Ian
    Dec 1 at 19:11










  • your definition of $Bbb N_mu$ seems wrong. I guess that $Bbb N_mu$ want to mean the collection of subsets of any subset of the original $sigma$-algebra of measure zero. If this is the case you must write in the definition $Esubseteq N$ instead of $Nsubseteq E$
    – Masacroso
    Dec 1 at 19:28












  • there are some more typos, but the assertions are fine besides that. You want to write $Bbb E_musetminusBbb N_mu$ and $Bbb E_musetminusBbb E$ instead of what you wrote
    – Masacroso
    Dec 1 at 19:35












  • Thank you for your help!
    – Frederik
    Dec 2 at 9:30
















0














I have the measure space $(X,mathbb{E},mu)$ where $mathbb{E}$ is a $sigma$-algebra on $X$ and $mu$ is the Lebesgue measure.



I have that
$$mathbb{N}_mu={Esubseteq X; |; text{there exist }Einmathbb{E};text{so};Nsubseteq E;;text{and};mu(E)=0}inmathbb{N}_mu},$$
so is the following argumentation valid:



The enlargement of $mathbb{E}$ with respect to $mu$ is:
$$mathbb{E}_mu=mathbb{E}cupmathbb{N}_mu,$$
so
$$mathbb{E}subseteq mathbb{E}_muquadquadtext{and}quadquadmathbb{N}_musubseteq mathbb{E}_mu$$
as
$mathbb{E}=mathbb{E}_mu$ ${mathbb{N}_mu}$ and $mathbb{N}_mu=mathbb{E}_mu$ ${mathbb{E}}$.






measure-theory lebesgue-measure







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    I misunderstood what you did, yes this is basically correct.
    – Ian
    Dec 1 at 18:58












  • Except there are some places where you are sloppy...for example you really want to add sets $B$ such that there is a measurable set $A$ and a measurable set $C$ with $mu(C)=0$ and $B setminus A subseteq C$.
    – Ian
    Dec 1 at 19:11










  • your definition of $Bbb N_mu$ seems wrong. I guess that $Bbb N_mu$ want to mean the collection of subsets of any subset of the original $sigma$-algebra of measure zero. If this is the case you must write in the definition $Esubseteq N$ instead of $Nsubseteq E$
    – Masacroso
    Dec 1 at 19:28












  • there are some more typos, but the assertions are fine besides that. You want to write $Bbb E_musetminusBbb N_mu$ and $Bbb E_musetminusBbb E$ instead of what you wrote
    – Masacroso
    Dec 1 at 19:35












  • Thank you for your help!
    – Frederik
    Dec 2 at 9:30














0












0








0







I have the measure space $(X,mathbb{E},mu)$ where $mathbb{E}$ is a $sigma$-algebra on $X$ and $mu$ is the Lebesgue measure.



I have that
$$mathbb{N}_mu={Esubseteq X; |; text{there exist }Einmathbb{E};text{so};Nsubseteq E;;text{and};mu(E)=0}inmathbb{N}_mu},$$
so is the following argumentation valid:



The enlargement of $mathbb{E}$ with respect to $mu$ is:
$$mathbb{E}_mu=mathbb{E}cupmathbb{N}_mu,$$
so
$$mathbb{E}subseteq mathbb{E}_muquadquadtext{and}quadquadmathbb{N}_musubseteq mathbb{E}_mu$$
as
$mathbb{E}=mathbb{E}_mu$ ${mathbb{N}_mu}$ and $mathbb{N}_mu=mathbb{E}_mu$ ${mathbb{E}}$.






measure-theory lebesgue-measure







share|cite|improve this question















I have the measure space $(X,mathbb{E},mu)$ where $mathbb{E}$ is a $sigma$-algebra on $X$ and $mu$ is the Lebesgue measure.



I have that
$$mathbb{N}_mu={Esubseteq X; |; text{there exist }Einmathbb{E};text{so};Nsubseteq E;;text{and};mu(E)=0}inmathbb{N}_mu},$$
so is the following argumentation valid:



The enlargement of $mathbb{E}$ with respect to $mu$ is:
$$mathbb{E}_mu=mathbb{E}cupmathbb{N}_mu,$$
so
$$mathbb{E}subseteq mathbb{E}_muquadquadtext{and}quadquadmathbb{N}_musubseteq mathbb{E}_mu$$
as
$mathbb{E}=mathbb{E}_mu$ ${mathbb{N}_mu}$ and $mathbb{N}_mu=mathbb{E}_mu$ ${mathbb{E}}$.






measure-theory lebesgue-measure




measure-theory lebesgue-measure






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 2 at 9:26

























asked Dec 1 at 18:40









Frederik

959




959








  • 1




    I misunderstood what you did, yes this is basically correct.
    – Ian
    Dec 1 at 18:58












  • Except there are some places where you are sloppy...for example you really want to add sets $B$ such that there is a measurable set $A$ and a measurable set $C$ with $mu(C)=0$ and $B setminus A subseteq C$.
    – Ian
    Dec 1 at 19:11










  • your definition of $Bbb N_mu$ seems wrong. I guess that $Bbb N_mu$ want to mean the collection of subsets of any subset of the original $sigma$-algebra of measure zero. If this is the case you must write in the definition $Esubseteq N$ instead of $Nsubseteq E$
    – Masacroso
    Dec 1 at 19:28












  • there are some more typos, but the assertions are fine besides that. You want to write $Bbb E_musetminusBbb N_mu$ and $Bbb E_musetminusBbb E$ instead of what you wrote
    – Masacroso
    Dec 1 at 19:35












  • Thank you for your help!
    – Frederik
    Dec 2 at 9:30














  • 1




    I misunderstood what you did, yes this is basically correct.
    – Ian
    Dec 1 at 18:58












  • Except there are some places where you are sloppy...for example you really want to add sets $B$ such that there is a measurable set $A$ and a measurable set $C$ with $mu(C)=0$ and $B setminus A subseteq C$.
    – Ian
    Dec 1 at 19:11










  • your definition of $Bbb N_mu$ seems wrong. I guess that $Bbb N_mu$ want to mean the collection of subsets of any subset of the original $sigma$-algebra of measure zero. If this is the case you must write in the definition $Esubseteq N$ instead of $Nsubseteq E$
    – Masacroso
    Dec 1 at 19:28












  • there are some more typos, but the assertions are fine besides that. You want to write $Bbb E_musetminusBbb N_mu$ and $Bbb E_musetminusBbb E$ instead of what you wrote
    – Masacroso
    Dec 1 at 19:35












  • Thank you for your help!
    – Frederik
    Dec 2 at 9:30








1




1




I misunderstood what you did, yes this is basically correct.
– Ian
Dec 1 at 18:58






I misunderstood what you did, yes this is basically correct.
– Ian
Dec 1 at 18:58














Except there are some places where you are sloppy...for example you really want to add sets $B$ such that there is a measurable set $A$ and a measurable set $C$ with $mu(C)=0$ and $B setminus A subseteq C$.
– Ian
Dec 1 at 19:11




Except there are some places where you are sloppy...for example you really want to add sets $B$ such that there is a measurable set $A$ and a measurable set $C$ with $mu(C)=0$ and $B setminus A subseteq C$.
– Ian
Dec 1 at 19:11












your definition of $Bbb N_mu$ seems wrong. I guess that $Bbb N_mu$ want to mean the collection of subsets of any subset of the original $sigma$-algebra of measure zero. If this is the case you must write in the definition $Esubseteq N$ instead of $Nsubseteq E$
– Masacroso
Dec 1 at 19:28






your definition of $Bbb N_mu$ seems wrong. I guess that $Bbb N_mu$ want to mean the collection of subsets of any subset of the original $sigma$-algebra of measure zero. If this is the case you must write in the definition $Esubseteq N$ instead of $Nsubseteq E$
– Masacroso
Dec 1 at 19:28














there are some more typos, but the assertions are fine besides that. You want to write $Bbb E_musetminusBbb N_mu$ and $Bbb E_musetminusBbb E$ instead of what you wrote
– Masacroso
Dec 1 at 19:35






there are some more typos, but the assertions are fine besides that. You want to write $Bbb E_musetminusBbb N_mu$ and $Bbb E_musetminusBbb E$ instead of what you wrote
– Masacroso
Dec 1 at 19:35














Thank you for your help!
– Frederik
Dec 2 at 9:30




Thank you for your help!
– Frederik
Dec 2 at 9:30










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0














If you start with $(X,mathcal{M},mu)$, the completed $sigma$-algebra is



$$mathcal{M}^*={ B subseteq X : text{ there exists } A,C in mathcal{M} : mu(C)=0 wedge B setminus A subseteq C }.$$



Note that fixing $C=emptyset$ inside that set builder reproduces $mathcal{M}$ itself, so no union is required. Similarly fixing $A=emptyset$ reproduces all of the actual null sets in the completed space.



This is not quite what you wrote, what you wrote has some minor errors that make it rather nonsensical (for example $E$ being bound under two different quantifiers in the same expression).






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',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    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%2f3021667%2fcompletion-of-mathbbe-by-mathbbn-mu-regarding-lebesgue-measure-are%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0














    If you start with $(X,mathcal{M},mu)$, the completed $sigma$-algebra is



    $$mathcal{M}^*={ B subseteq X : text{ there exists } A,C in mathcal{M} : mu(C)=0 wedge B setminus A subseteq C }.$$



    Note that fixing $C=emptyset$ inside that set builder reproduces $mathcal{M}$ itself, so no union is required. Similarly fixing $A=emptyset$ reproduces all of the actual null sets in the completed space.



    This is not quite what you wrote, what you wrote has some minor errors that make it rather nonsensical (for example $E$ being bound under two different quantifiers in the same expression).






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      0














      If you start with $(X,mathcal{M},mu)$, the completed $sigma$-algebra is



      $$mathcal{M}^*={ B subseteq X : text{ there exists } A,C in mathcal{M} : mu(C)=0 wedge B setminus A subseteq C }.$$



      Note that fixing $C=emptyset$ inside that set builder reproduces $mathcal{M}$ itself, so no union is required. Similarly fixing $A=emptyset$ reproduces all of the actual null sets in the completed space.



      This is not quite what you wrote, what you wrote has some minor errors that make it rather nonsensical (for example $E$ being bound under two different quantifiers in the same expression).






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        0












        0








        0






        If you start with $(X,mathcal{M},mu)$, the completed $sigma$-algebra is



        $$mathcal{M}^*={ B subseteq X : text{ there exists } A,C in mathcal{M} : mu(C)=0 wedge B setminus A subseteq C }.$$



        Note that fixing $C=emptyset$ inside that set builder reproduces $mathcal{M}$ itself, so no union is required. Similarly fixing $A=emptyset$ reproduces all of the actual null sets in the completed space.



        This is not quite what you wrote, what you wrote has some minor errors that make it rather nonsensical (for example $E$ being bound under two different quantifiers in the same expression).






        share|cite|improve this answer














        If you start with $(X,mathcal{M},mu)$, the completed $sigma$-algebra is



        $$mathcal{M}^*={ B subseteq X : text{ there exists } A,C in mathcal{M} : mu(C)=0 wedge B setminus A subseteq C }.$$



        Note that fixing $C=emptyset$ inside that set builder reproduces $mathcal{M}$ itself, so no union is required. Similarly fixing $A=emptyset$ reproduces all of the actual null sets in the completed space.



        This is not quite what you wrote, what you wrote has some minor errors that make it rather nonsensical (for example $E$ being bound under two different quantifiers in the same expression).







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 1 at 19:40

























        answered Dec 1 at 18:46









        Ian

        67.3k25386




        67.3k25386






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021667%2fcompletion-of-mathbbe-by-mathbbn-mu-regarding-lebesgue-measure-are%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Berounka

            Image
            Berounka.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Caractéristiques Longueur 139  km Bassin 8 861  km 2 Bassin collecteur Elbe Débit moyen ? Cours Source Confluence de la Mže et de la Radbuza · Localisation Pilsen · Altitude 305  m · Coordonnées 49° 45′ 13″ N, 13° 23′ 24″ E Confluence Vltava · Localisation Prague · Altitude 187  m · Coordonnées 49° 59′ 43″ N, 14° 24′ 04″ E Géographie Pays traversés   République tchèque modifier   La Berounka est une rivière de la République tchèque. Elle porte le nom de Mže depuis sa source en Allemagne près de la frontière jusqu'à sa confluence avec la Radbuza à Plzeň. Elle continue ensuite sous le nom de Berounka jusqu'à sa confluence avec la Vltava, près de Prague. La rivière est une destination prisée pour les amateurs de canoë, qui appréc...
            Read more

            Sphinx de Gizeh

            Image
            Pour les articles homonymes, voir Sphinx. Sphinx de Gizeh.mw-parser-output .entete.egypte-antique{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Picto_infobox_ancient_Egypt.png")} Site d'Égypte antique Le visage du sphinx de Gizeh. Noms en arabe أبو الهول , Abou al-Hôl Localisation Région Basse-Égypte Coordonnées 29° 58′ 31″ nord, 31° 08′ 16″ est Géolocalisation sur la carte : Égypte Sphinx de Gizeh modifier   Le sphinx de Gizeh est la statue thérianthrope qui se dresse devant les grandes pyramides du plateau de Gizeh, en Basse-Égypte. Sculpture monumentale monolithique la plus grande du monde [ 1 ] avec 73,5 mètres de longueur, 14 mètres de largeur et 20,22 mètres de hauteur, elle représente un sphinx couchant. Réalisée vers -2500, elle serait attribuée à Djédefrê, l'un des pharaons de la IV e  dynastie, représentant son père le pharaon Khéops. Sommaire 1 Étymologie 2 Desc...
            Read more

            Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...

            Image
            3 Let's suppose I'd like to divert the navigation symbols template (e.g. in order replace them by the frame numbers, see this bug report ;) I would be facing troubles regarding the font size/position, depending on regular/plain frames, as shown by the following MCE. How could I get rid of these troubles? documentclass{beamer} usetheme{PaloAlto} setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{insertframenumber/inserttotalframenumber} begin{document} begin{frame} frametitle{A regular frame} end{frame} begin{frame}[plain] frametitle{A plain frame} end{frame} end{document} beamer header-footer share | improve this question asked Dec 10 '18 a...
            Read more