Mutually singular complex measures implies mutual singularity of total variation
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
This is an exercise from Folland. It is exercise 3.19
The question: Prove for complex measures $mu$ and $nu$ that $nuperp mu$ iff $vert nu vertperp vert mu vert$.
The $(Leftarrow)$ direction is a very simple consequence of the fact that $vert nu(E)vertleq vert nu vert (E)$ for any complex measure $nu$. The other direction is the direction I am struggling with.
For a complex measure $nu$, I am using the definition of $vert nu vert$ which says $vert nu vert$ is the measure which is determined by if $dnu=fdmu$ for $mu$ a positive measure, then $dvert nu vert=vert f vert dmu$
There doesn't seem to be a lot we can use. First we see, by definition, that $nu perp mu$ gives rise to the following
$nu_iperp mu_i$
$nu_iperp mu_r$
$nu_r perp mu_i$
$nu_r perp mu_r$
Though this doesn't give me a lot to work with, as I don't have a way of expressing $vert nu vert$ in terms of $nu_i$ and $nu_r$...I would prefer a hint to a complete answer.
real-analysis measure-theory
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
This is an exercise from Folland. It is exercise 3.19
The question: Prove for complex measures $mu$ and $nu$ that $nuperp mu$ iff $vert nu vertperp vert mu vert$.
The $(Leftarrow)$ direction is a very simple consequence of the fact that $vert nu(E)vertleq vert nu vert (E)$ for any complex measure $nu$. The other direction is the direction I am struggling with.
For a complex measure $nu$, I am using the definition of $vert nu vert$ which says $vert nu vert$ is the measure which is determined by if $dnu=fdmu$ for $mu$ a positive measure, then $dvert nu vert=vert f vert dmu$
There doesn't seem to be a lot we can use. First we see, by definition, that $nu perp mu$ gives rise to the following
$nu_iperp mu_i$
$nu_iperp mu_r$
$nu_r perp mu_i$
$nu_r perp mu_r$
Though this doesn't give me a lot to work with, as I don't have a way of expressing $vert nu vert$ in terms of $nu_i$ and $nu_r$...I would prefer a hint to a complete answer.
real-analysis measure-theory
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
This is an exercise from Folland. It is exercise 3.19
The question: Prove for complex measures $mu$ and $nu$ that $nuperp mu$ iff $vert nu vertperp vert mu vert$.
The $(Leftarrow)$ direction is a very simple consequence of the fact that $vert nu(E)vertleq vert nu vert (E)$ for any complex measure $nu$. The other direction is the direction I am struggling with.
For a complex measure $nu$, I am using the definition of $vert nu vert$ which says $vert nu vert$ is the measure which is determined by if $dnu=fdmu$ for $mu$ a positive measure, then $dvert nu vert=vert f vert dmu$
There doesn't seem to be a lot we can use. First we see, by definition, that $nu perp mu$ gives rise to the following
$nu_iperp mu_i$
$nu_iperp mu_r$
$nu_r perp mu_i$
$nu_r perp mu_r$
Though this doesn't give me a lot to work with, as I don't have a way of expressing $vert nu vert$ in terms of $nu_i$ and $nu_r$...I would prefer a hint to a complete answer.
real-analysis measure-theory
This is an exercise from Folland. It is exercise 3.19
The question: Prove for complex measures $mu$ and $nu$ that $nuperp mu$ iff $vert nu vertperp vert mu vert$.
The $(Leftarrow)$ direction is a very simple consequence of the fact that $vert nu(E)vertleq vert nu vert (E)$ for any complex measure $nu$. The other direction is the direction I am struggling with.
For a complex measure $nu$, I am using the definition of $vert nu vert$ which says $vert nu vert$ is the measure which is determined by if $dnu=fdmu$ for $mu$ a positive measure, then $dvert nu vert=vert f vert dmu$
There doesn't seem to be a lot we can use. First we see, by definition, that $nu perp mu$ gives rise to the following
$nu_iperp mu_i$
$nu_iperp mu_r$
$nu_r perp mu_i$
$nu_r perp mu_r$
Though this doesn't give me a lot to work with, as I don't have a way of expressing $vert nu vert$ in terms of $nu_i$ and $nu_r$...I would prefer a hint to a complete answer.
real-analysis measure-theory
real-analysis measure-theory
asked Nov 23 at 22:43
Damo
469210
469210
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Full solution. Write $nu = f cdot rho$ and $mu = g cdot sigma,$ where $rho$ and $sigma$ are positive measures, here I use the common notation $(f cdot rho)(mathrm{X}) = intlimits_{mathrm{X}} f drho$ and similar for other cases. Consider the positive measure $tau = rho + sigma$ and the Lebesgue-Nikodym theorem asserts that $rho ll tau$ and $sigma ll tau$ so that $nu = f_0 cdot tau$ and $mu = g_0 cdot tau.$ Then, $|nu| = |f_0| cdot tau$ and $|mu| = |g_0| cdot tau.$ the hypothesis $nu perp mu$ signifies then $f_0 g_0 = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ hence $|f_0| |g_0| = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ and this is the same as saying $|nu| perp |mu|.$ Q.E.D.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I don't have Folland's book and I will use the definitions in Rudin's book. $mu perp nu$ means there exist disjoint measurable sets $A,B$ such that $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and $nu$ is concentrated on $B$. $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and means $mu (E)=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. Hence $|mu| (E) =sup {sum |mu (E_n)|: {E_n} text {is a partition of } E}=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. (Because $mu (E_n)=0$ for every $n$). Hence $|mu |(A^{c})=0$. Similarly, $|nu |(B^{c})=0$. Hence $|mu| perp |nu|$.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Full solution. Write $nu = f cdot rho$ and $mu = g cdot sigma,$ where $rho$ and $sigma$ are positive measures, here I use the common notation $(f cdot rho)(mathrm{X}) = intlimits_{mathrm{X}} f drho$ and similar for other cases. Consider the positive measure $tau = rho + sigma$ and the Lebesgue-Nikodym theorem asserts that $rho ll tau$ and $sigma ll tau$ so that $nu = f_0 cdot tau$ and $mu = g_0 cdot tau.$ Then, $|nu| = |f_0| cdot tau$ and $|mu| = |g_0| cdot tau.$ the hypothesis $nu perp mu$ signifies then $f_0 g_0 = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ hence $|f_0| |g_0| = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ and this is the same as saying $|nu| perp |mu|.$ Q.E.D.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Full solution. Write $nu = f cdot rho$ and $mu = g cdot sigma,$ where $rho$ and $sigma$ are positive measures, here I use the common notation $(f cdot rho)(mathrm{X}) = intlimits_{mathrm{X}} f drho$ and similar for other cases. Consider the positive measure $tau = rho + sigma$ and the Lebesgue-Nikodym theorem asserts that $rho ll tau$ and $sigma ll tau$ so that $nu = f_0 cdot tau$ and $mu = g_0 cdot tau.$ Then, $|nu| = |f_0| cdot tau$ and $|mu| = |g_0| cdot tau.$ the hypothesis $nu perp mu$ signifies then $f_0 g_0 = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ hence $|f_0| |g_0| = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ and this is the same as saying $|nu| perp |mu|.$ Q.E.D.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Full solution. Write $nu = f cdot rho$ and $mu = g cdot sigma,$ where $rho$ and $sigma$ are positive measures, here I use the common notation $(f cdot rho)(mathrm{X}) = intlimits_{mathrm{X}} f drho$ and similar for other cases. Consider the positive measure $tau = rho + sigma$ and the Lebesgue-Nikodym theorem asserts that $rho ll tau$ and $sigma ll tau$ so that $nu = f_0 cdot tau$ and $mu = g_0 cdot tau.$ Then, $|nu| = |f_0| cdot tau$ and $|mu| = |g_0| cdot tau.$ the hypothesis $nu perp mu$ signifies then $f_0 g_0 = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ hence $|f_0| |g_0| = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ and this is the same as saying $|nu| perp |mu|.$ Q.E.D.
Full solution. Write $nu = f cdot rho$ and $mu = g cdot sigma,$ where $rho$ and $sigma$ are positive measures, here I use the common notation $(f cdot rho)(mathrm{X}) = intlimits_{mathrm{X}} f drho$ and similar for other cases. Consider the positive measure $tau = rho + sigma$ and the Lebesgue-Nikodym theorem asserts that $rho ll tau$ and $sigma ll tau$ so that $nu = f_0 cdot tau$ and $mu = g_0 cdot tau.$ Then, $|nu| = |f_0| cdot tau$ and $|mu| = |g_0| cdot tau.$ the hypothesis $nu perp mu$ signifies then $f_0 g_0 = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ hence $|f_0| |g_0| = 0$ for almost every point with respect to $tau,$ and this is the same as saying $|nu| perp |mu|.$ Q.E.D.
answered Nov 23 at 23:30
Will M.
2,124213
2,124213
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I don't have Folland's book and I will use the definitions in Rudin's book. $mu perp nu$ means there exist disjoint measurable sets $A,B$ such that $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and $nu$ is concentrated on $B$. $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and means $mu (E)=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. Hence $|mu| (E) =sup {sum |mu (E_n)|: {E_n} text {is a partition of } E}=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. (Because $mu (E_n)=0$ for every $n$). Hence $|mu |(A^{c})=0$. Similarly, $|nu |(B^{c})=0$. Hence $|mu| perp |nu|$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I don't have Folland's book and I will use the definitions in Rudin's book. $mu perp nu$ means there exist disjoint measurable sets $A,B$ such that $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and $nu$ is concentrated on $B$. $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and means $mu (E)=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. Hence $|mu| (E) =sup {sum |mu (E_n)|: {E_n} text {is a partition of } E}=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. (Because $mu (E_n)=0$ for every $n$). Hence $|mu |(A^{c})=0$. Similarly, $|nu |(B^{c})=0$. Hence $|mu| perp |nu|$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I don't have Folland's book and I will use the definitions in Rudin's book. $mu perp nu$ means there exist disjoint measurable sets $A,B$ such that $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and $nu$ is concentrated on $B$. $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and means $mu (E)=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. Hence $|mu| (E) =sup {sum |mu (E_n)|: {E_n} text {is a partition of } E}=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. (Because $mu (E_n)=0$ for every $n$). Hence $|mu |(A^{c})=0$. Similarly, $|nu |(B^{c})=0$. Hence $|mu| perp |nu|$.
I don't have Folland's book and I will use the definitions in Rudin's book. $mu perp nu$ means there exist disjoint measurable sets $A,B$ such that $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and $nu$ is concentrated on $B$. $mu$ is concentrated on $A$ and means $mu (E)=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. Hence $|mu| (E) =sup {sum |mu (E_n)|: {E_n} text {is a partition of } E}=0$ for every measurable set $E subset A^{c}$. (Because $mu (E_n)=0$ for every $n$). Hence $|mu |(A^{c})=0$. Similarly, $|nu |(B^{c})=0$. Hence $|mu| perp |nu|$.
answered Nov 23 at 23:14
Kavi Rama Murthy
43.5k31751
43.5k31751
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3010933%2fmutually-singular-complex-measures-implies-mutual-singularity-of-total-variation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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