Lebesgue decomposition of a measure











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I have a similar question as here.



Lesbesgue-Stieltjes measure $mu_F$ with the function $F=lvert xrvertlfloor xrfloor$. i.e. $mu_F([a,b))=F(b)-F(a)$. I am trying to find the Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym decomposition of $mu_F$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure $m$.



Now, I know this function has countably many discontinuities at each integer-valued $x$, so I believe I want the mutually singular part to be the Dirac Measure of each integer, and take the absolute continuous part to be the Lebesgue measure itself. But it would have to be a countable sum of Dirac measures for the discontinuity points… and I am not sure if I am allowed to do that, or if my approach is ok.



I would love to get some feedback/a point in the right direction or any help in general.










share|cite|improve this question

















This question has an open bounty worth +150
reputation from Mog ending in 3 days.


The question is widely applicable to a large audience. A detailed canonical answer is required to address all the concerns.
















  • Each integer is an atom, and its size is $|x|.$ I think there is no diffuse part that is continuous and the absolutely continuous part will be obtained by difference.
    – Will M.
    Nov 21 at 4:07










  • @WillM. What do you mean by "there is no diffuse part"? And do you mean the absolute continuous part with respect to Lebesgue measure is simply difference of $F$ at endpoints, or do you mean something else? Also, wouldn't the atom's size be 1?
    – Mog
    Nov 21 at 4:09












  • On the one hand, a measure $mu$ is "diffuse" if $mu(mathrm{K}) = 0$ for all finite $mathrm{K}.$ On the other hand, you will construct a measure $mu$ that is atomic (the atoms of $mu_F$) then the absolutely continuous part, my guess is, $mu_F-mu.$
    – Will M.
    Nov 21 at 4:12










  • @WillM. I'm not sure if I follow.. If you have the time, do you mind writing out the answer?
    – Mog
    Nov 21 at 4:20










  • This is a really interesting question. If you could briefly refresh my memory what does it mean to take a measure with respect to a function?
    – The Great Duck
    Nov 23 at 6:22















up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I have a similar question as here.



Lesbesgue-Stieltjes measure $mu_F$ with the function $F=lvert xrvertlfloor xrfloor$. i.e. $mu_F([a,b))=F(b)-F(a)$. I am trying to find the Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym decomposition of $mu_F$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure $m$.



Now, I know this function has countably many discontinuities at each integer-valued $x$, so I believe I want the mutually singular part to be the Dirac Measure of each integer, and take the absolute continuous part to be the Lebesgue measure itself. But it would have to be a countable sum of Dirac measures for the discontinuity points… and I am not sure if I am allowed to do that, or if my approach is ok.



I would love to get some feedback/a point in the right direction or any help in general.










share|cite|improve this question

















This question has an open bounty worth +150
reputation from Mog ending in 3 days.


The question is widely applicable to a large audience. A detailed canonical answer is required to address all the concerns.
















  • Each integer is an atom, and its size is $|x|.$ I think there is no diffuse part that is continuous and the absolutely continuous part will be obtained by difference.
    – Will M.
    Nov 21 at 4:07










  • @WillM. What do you mean by "there is no diffuse part"? And do you mean the absolute continuous part with respect to Lebesgue measure is simply difference of $F$ at endpoints, or do you mean something else? Also, wouldn't the atom's size be 1?
    – Mog
    Nov 21 at 4:09












  • On the one hand, a measure $mu$ is "diffuse" if $mu(mathrm{K}) = 0$ for all finite $mathrm{K}.$ On the other hand, you will construct a measure $mu$ that is atomic (the atoms of $mu_F$) then the absolutely continuous part, my guess is, $mu_F-mu.$
    – Will M.
    Nov 21 at 4:12










  • @WillM. I'm not sure if I follow.. If you have the time, do you mind writing out the answer?
    – Mog
    Nov 21 at 4:20










  • This is a really interesting question. If you could briefly refresh my memory what does it mean to take a measure with respect to a function?
    – The Great Duck
    Nov 23 at 6:22













up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1





I have a similar question as here.



Lesbesgue-Stieltjes measure $mu_F$ with the function $F=lvert xrvertlfloor xrfloor$. i.e. $mu_F([a,b))=F(b)-F(a)$. I am trying to find the Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym decomposition of $mu_F$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure $m$.



Now, I know this function has countably many discontinuities at each integer-valued $x$, so I believe I want the mutually singular part to be the Dirac Measure of each integer, and take the absolute continuous part to be the Lebesgue measure itself. But it would have to be a countable sum of Dirac measures for the discontinuity points… and I am not sure if I am allowed to do that, or if my approach is ok.



I would love to get some feedback/a point in the right direction or any help in general.










share|cite|improve this question















I have a similar question as here.



Lesbesgue-Stieltjes measure $mu_F$ with the function $F=lvert xrvertlfloor xrfloor$. i.e. $mu_F([a,b))=F(b)-F(a)$. I am trying to find the Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym decomposition of $mu_F$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure $m$.



Now, I know this function has countably many discontinuities at each integer-valued $x$, so I believe I want the mutually singular part to be the Dirac Measure of each integer, and take the absolute continuous part to be the Lebesgue measure itself. But it would have to be a countable sum of Dirac measures for the discontinuity points… and I am not sure if I am allowed to do that, or if my approach is ok.



I would love to get some feedback/a point in the right direction or any help in general.







real-analysis measure-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 23 at 7:04









user302797

19.1k92251




19.1k92251










asked Nov 21 at 3:40









Mog

678




678






This question has an open bounty worth +150
reputation from Mog ending in 3 days.


The question is widely applicable to a large audience. A detailed canonical answer is required to address all the concerns.








This question has an open bounty worth +150
reputation from Mog ending in 3 days.


The question is widely applicable to a large audience. A detailed canonical answer is required to address all the concerns.














  • Each integer is an atom, and its size is $|x|.$ I think there is no diffuse part that is continuous and the absolutely continuous part will be obtained by difference.
    – Will M.
    Nov 21 at 4:07










  • @WillM. What do you mean by "there is no diffuse part"? And do you mean the absolute continuous part with respect to Lebesgue measure is simply difference of $F$ at endpoints, or do you mean something else? Also, wouldn't the atom's size be 1?
    – Mog
    Nov 21 at 4:09












  • On the one hand, a measure $mu$ is "diffuse" if $mu(mathrm{K}) = 0$ for all finite $mathrm{K}.$ On the other hand, you will construct a measure $mu$ that is atomic (the atoms of $mu_F$) then the absolutely continuous part, my guess is, $mu_F-mu.$
    – Will M.
    Nov 21 at 4:12










  • @WillM. I'm not sure if I follow.. If you have the time, do you mind writing out the answer?
    – Mog
    Nov 21 at 4:20










  • This is a really interesting question. If you could briefly refresh my memory what does it mean to take a measure with respect to a function?
    – The Great Duck
    Nov 23 at 6:22


















  • Each integer is an atom, and its size is $|x|.$ I think there is no diffuse part that is continuous and the absolutely continuous part will be obtained by difference.
    – Will M.
    Nov 21 at 4:07










  • @WillM. What do you mean by "there is no diffuse part"? And do you mean the absolute continuous part with respect to Lebesgue measure is simply difference of $F$ at endpoints, or do you mean something else? Also, wouldn't the atom's size be 1?
    – Mog
    Nov 21 at 4:09












  • On the one hand, a measure $mu$ is "diffuse" if $mu(mathrm{K}) = 0$ for all finite $mathrm{K}.$ On the other hand, you will construct a measure $mu$ that is atomic (the atoms of $mu_F$) then the absolutely continuous part, my guess is, $mu_F-mu.$
    – Will M.
    Nov 21 at 4:12










  • @WillM. I'm not sure if I follow.. If you have the time, do you mind writing out the answer?
    – Mog
    Nov 21 at 4:20










  • This is a really interesting question. If you could briefly refresh my memory what does it mean to take a measure with respect to a function?
    – The Great Duck
    Nov 23 at 6:22
















Each integer is an atom, and its size is $|x|.$ I think there is no diffuse part that is continuous and the absolutely continuous part will be obtained by difference.
– Will M.
Nov 21 at 4:07




Each integer is an atom, and its size is $|x|.$ I think there is no diffuse part that is continuous and the absolutely continuous part will be obtained by difference.
– Will M.
Nov 21 at 4:07












@WillM. What do you mean by "there is no diffuse part"? And do you mean the absolute continuous part with respect to Lebesgue measure is simply difference of $F$ at endpoints, or do you mean something else? Also, wouldn't the atom's size be 1?
– Mog
Nov 21 at 4:09






@WillM. What do you mean by "there is no diffuse part"? And do you mean the absolute continuous part with respect to Lebesgue measure is simply difference of $F$ at endpoints, or do you mean something else? Also, wouldn't the atom's size be 1?
– Mog
Nov 21 at 4:09














On the one hand, a measure $mu$ is "diffuse" if $mu(mathrm{K}) = 0$ for all finite $mathrm{K}.$ On the other hand, you will construct a measure $mu$ that is atomic (the atoms of $mu_F$) then the absolutely continuous part, my guess is, $mu_F-mu.$
– Will M.
Nov 21 at 4:12




On the one hand, a measure $mu$ is "diffuse" if $mu(mathrm{K}) = 0$ for all finite $mathrm{K}.$ On the other hand, you will construct a measure $mu$ that is atomic (the atoms of $mu_F$) then the absolutely continuous part, my guess is, $mu_F-mu.$
– Will M.
Nov 21 at 4:12












@WillM. I'm not sure if I follow.. If you have the time, do you mind writing out the answer?
– Mog
Nov 21 at 4:20




@WillM. I'm not sure if I follow.. If you have the time, do you mind writing out the answer?
– Mog
Nov 21 at 4:20












This is a really interesting question. If you could briefly refresh my memory what does it mean to take a measure with respect to a function?
– The Great Duck
Nov 23 at 6:22




This is a really interesting question. If you could briefly refresh my memory what does it mean to take a measure with respect to a function?
– The Great Duck
Nov 23 at 6:22










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










$defd{mathrm{d}}$It is fine to add countably many measures to define a new measure as long as all of them are non-negative.



For this question, define$$
μ_c(d x) = |lfloor xrfloor| , m(d x),quad μ_s(d x) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| δ_n(d x),
$$

i.e.$$
μ_c(A) = int_A |lfloor xrfloor| ,d x,quad μ_s(A) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| I_A(n).
$$

It easy to verify that $μ_c$ and $μ_s$ are indeed measures and $μ_c ll m$, $μ_s ⊥ m$.



To prove that $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$, it suffices to prove that for any $k in mathbb{Z}$ and $k leqslant a < b leqslant k + 1$,$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

If $b < k + 1$, note that $ab > 0$, then$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = |k| (b - a) + 0 = |b| k - |a| k = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

Otherwise, note that $|k| (k + 1) = |k + 1| k$ since $k in mathbb{Z}$, thenbegin{align*}
&mathrel{phantom{=}}{} μ_c((a, k + 1]) + μ_s((a, k + 1]) = |k| (k + 1 - a) + |k + 1|\
&= |k + 1| (k + 1) - |k| a = μ_F((a, b]).
end{align*}

Therefore, $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Thank you for your answer. What do the $dx$'s next to $mu_c, mu_s$ mean?
    – Mog
    Nov 23 at 7:08












  • @Mog Simply a notation as in $μ(A)=int_Aμ(mathrm dx)$.
    – user302797
    Nov 23 at 8:58











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: 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%2f3007229%2flebesgue-decomposition-of-a-measure%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








up vote
2
down vote



accepted










$defd{mathrm{d}}$It is fine to add countably many measures to define a new measure as long as all of them are non-negative.



For this question, define$$
μ_c(d x) = |lfloor xrfloor| , m(d x),quad μ_s(d x) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| δ_n(d x),
$$

i.e.$$
μ_c(A) = int_A |lfloor xrfloor| ,d x,quad μ_s(A) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| I_A(n).
$$

It easy to verify that $μ_c$ and $μ_s$ are indeed measures and $μ_c ll m$, $μ_s ⊥ m$.



To prove that $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$, it suffices to prove that for any $k in mathbb{Z}$ and $k leqslant a < b leqslant k + 1$,$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

If $b < k + 1$, note that $ab > 0$, then$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = |k| (b - a) + 0 = |b| k - |a| k = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

Otherwise, note that $|k| (k + 1) = |k + 1| k$ since $k in mathbb{Z}$, thenbegin{align*}
&mathrel{phantom{=}}{} μ_c((a, k + 1]) + μ_s((a, k + 1]) = |k| (k + 1 - a) + |k + 1|\
&= |k + 1| (k + 1) - |k| a = μ_F((a, b]).
end{align*}

Therefore, $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Thank you for your answer. What do the $dx$'s next to $mu_c, mu_s$ mean?
    – Mog
    Nov 23 at 7:08












  • @Mog Simply a notation as in $μ(A)=int_Aμ(mathrm dx)$.
    – user302797
    Nov 23 at 8:58















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










$defd{mathrm{d}}$It is fine to add countably many measures to define a new measure as long as all of them are non-negative.



For this question, define$$
μ_c(d x) = |lfloor xrfloor| , m(d x),quad μ_s(d x) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| δ_n(d x),
$$

i.e.$$
μ_c(A) = int_A |lfloor xrfloor| ,d x,quad μ_s(A) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| I_A(n).
$$

It easy to verify that $μ_c$ and $μ_s$ are indeed measures and $μ_c ll m$, $μ_s ⊥ m$.



To prove that $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$, it suffices to prove that for any $k in mathbb{Z}$ and $k leqslant a < b leqslant k + 1$,$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

If $b < k + 1$, note that $ab > 0$, then$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = |k| (b - a) + 0 = |b| k - |a| k = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

Otherwise, note that $|k| (k + 1) = |k + 1| k$ since $k in mathbb{Z}$, thenbegin{align*}
&mathrel{phantom{=}}{} μ_c((a, k + 1]) + μ_s((a, k + 1]) = |k| (k + 1 - a) + |k + 1|\
&= |k + 1| (k + 1) - |k| a = μ_F((a, b]).
end{align*}

Therefore, $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Thank you for your answer. What do the $dx$'s next to $mu_c, mu_s$ mean?
    – Mog
    Nov 23 at 7:08












  • @Mog Simply a notation as in $μ(A)=int_Aμ(mathrm dx)$.
    – user302797
    Nov 23 at 8:58













up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






$defd{mathrm{d}}$It is fine to add countably many measures to define a new measure as long as all of them are non-negative.



For this question, define$$
μ_c(d x) = |lfloor xrfloor| , m(d x),quad μ_s(d x) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| δ_n(d x),
$$

i.e.$$
μ_c(A) = int_A |lfloor xrfloor| ,d x,quad μ_s(A) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| I_A(n).
$$

It easy to verify that $μ_c$ and $μ_s$ are indeed measures and $μ_c ll m$, $μ_s ⊥ m$.



To prove that $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$, it suffices to prove that for any $k in mathbb{Z}$ and $k leqslant a < b leqslant k + 1$,$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

If $b < k + 1$, note that $ab > 0$, then$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = |k| (b - a) + 0 = |b| k - |a| k = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

Otherwise, note that $|k| (k + 1) = |k + 1| k$ since $k in mathbb{Z}$, thenbegin{align*}
&mathrel{phantom{=}}{} μ_c((a, k + 1]) + μ_s((a, k + 1]) = |k| (k + 1 - a) + |k + 1|\
&= |k + 1| (k + 1) - |k| a = μ_F((a, b]).
end{align*}

Therefore, $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$.






share|cite|improve this answer












$defd{mathrm{d}}$It is fine to add countably many measures to define a new measure as long as all of them are non-negative.



For this question, define$$
μ_c(d x) = |lfloor xrfloor| , m(d x),quad μ_s(d x) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| δ_n(d x),
$$

i.e.$$
μ_c(A) = int_A |lfloor xrfloor| ,d x,quad μ_s(A) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} |n| I_A(n).
$$

It easy to verify that $μ_c$ and $μ_s$ are indeed measures and $μ_c ll m$, $μ_s ⊥ m$.



To prove that $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$, it suffices to prove that for any $k in mathbb{Z}$ and $k leqslant a < b leqslant k + 1$,$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

If $b < k + 1$, note that $ab > 0$, then$$
μ_c((a, b]) + μ_s((a, b]) = |k| (b - a) + 0 = |b| k - |a| k = μ_F((a, b]).
$$

Otherwise, note that $|k| (k + 1) = |k + 1| k$ since $k in mathbb{Z}$, thenbegin{align*}
&mathrel{phantom{=}}{} μ_c((a, k + 1]) + μ_s((a, k + 1]) = |k| (k + 1 - a) + |k + 1|\
&= |k + 1| (k + 1) - |k| a = μ_F((a, b]).
end{align*}

Therefore, $μ_F = μ_c + μ_s$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 23 at 7:02









user302797

19.1k92251




19.1k92251








  • 1




    Thank you for your answer. What do the $dx$'s next to $mu_c, mu_s$ mean?
    – Mog
    Nov 23 at 7:08












  • @Mog Simply a notation as in $μ(A)=int_Aμ(mathrm dx)$.
    – user302797
    Nov 23 at 8:58














  • 1




    Thank you for your answer. What do the $dx$'s next to $mu_c, mu_s$ mean?
    – Mog
    Nov 23 at 7:08












  • @Mog Simply a notation as in $μ(A)=int_Aμ(mathrm dx)$.
    – user302797
    Nov 23 at 8:58








1




1




Thank you for your answer. What do the $dx$'s next to $mu_c, mu_s$ mean?
– Mog
Nov 23 at 7:08






Thank you for your answer. What do the $dx$'s next to $mu_c, mu_s$ mean?
– Mog
Nov 23 at 7:08














@Mog Simply a notation as in $μ(A)=int_Aμ(mathrm dx)$.
– user302797
Nov 23 at 8:58




@Mog Simply a notation as in $μ(A)=int_Aμ(mathrm dx)$.
– user302797
Nov 23 at 8:58


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007229%2flebesgue-decomposition-of-a-measure%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

Wiesbaden

Marschland

Dieringhausen