The "support" of a measure

  • Thread starter rudinreader
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Measure
In summary, Rudin's "support" theorem states that there is a compact subset of a given space such that the measure of the set is 1. However, the theorem doesn't say anything about the measure of the interior of the subset.
  • #1
rudinreader
167
0
[SOLVED] The "support" of a measure

Posting a problem like this might help me get off my arse. This is #11 / chapter 2 of Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis.

Homework Statement



Let m be a regular Borel measure on a compact Hausdorff space X, assume m(X) = 1. Prove that there is a compact [tex]K \subseteq X[/tex] (the support of m) such that m(K) = 1 but m(H) < 1 for every proper compact subset H of K.

Hint (given by Rudin): Let K be the intersection of all compact K_a such that m(K_a) = 1; show that every open set V which contains K also contains some K_a. Regularity of m is needed.

Homework Equations



A measure m is "regular" if the following two conditions hold for every measurable E:
(1) m(E) = inf{m(V): V is an open set containing E}
(2) m(E) = sup{m(K): K is a compact subset of E}

The Attempt at a Solution



,,, work in progress

Edit: "support of X" corrected to read "support of m"
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The rules of the forum are that you must show some attempt at solving the problem before anyone can help you. Just kidding :). But, seriously, without a start, we still don't how far you got before you ran into a problem. Off your arse yet?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Kind of the opposite.. after posting I took a nap.

The only things I can say so far is that given the hint is correct then it's not hard to show the constructed K satisfies the hypothesis...
Because m(K) = inf{m(V): V open contains K}, and since each such V contains a K_a, we have m(V) >= m(K_a) = 1, hence m(K) = 1. Then if C is any proper compact subset of K, then K is not a subset of C, hence m(C) < 1.

But as for proving the hint, I haven't figured anything out yet!
 
  • #4
Another point is that since m(X) = 1, whenever A,B are subsets such that m(A) = 1, m(B) = 1, then m(A [itex]\cap[/itex] B) = 1, because m(A^c [itex]\cup[/itex] B^c) = 0. It follows that every finite intersection of {K_a} is not empty (has measure 1), hence K is not empty. (But it does not follow directly that m(K) = 1, although that is what I'm trying to show...)
 
  • #5
Also sometimes it helps to look at an example... but the simple example of Lebesgue measure on X = [0,1] does not seem to help much.. If K_a is a compact subset of [0,1] such that m(K_a) = 1, then [0,1]-K_a is an open subset of measure 0: hence [0,1] - K_a is empty.

In other words, [0,1] is the only compact subset of X with measure 1. So K = [0,1] in this case, so it is obvious. So I don't see any help in the general case here.
 
  • #6
OK I got it! This is a good example of how easy a problem looks after seeing it's solution...

Again, let X be compact with m(X) = 1, let {K_a} be all the compacts such that m(K_a) = 1, and let K be the intersection, and let V be an open set containing K.
Then [tex]\cap K_a \subseteq V \Rightarrow V^c \subseteq \cup K_a^c[/tex], hence [tex]\{ K_a^c \}[/tex] is an open cover of compact V^c, so has a finite subcover {K_1^c,...,K_n^c}. Thus [tex]K_1 \cap ... \cap K_n \subseteq V[/tex]. But as described above, a finite intersection of K_a's has measure 1 (and is compact), and that does it for proving the hint, and as described above, the problem.

I didn't see the solution to this problem until I considered an equivalent formulation:

Let {U_a} be the set of all open sets (in X above) such that m(U_a) = 0, and let U be the union of the U_a's. Then m(U) = 0. To prove this, show for any closed [tex]C \subseteq U[/tex], that you must have [tex]C \subseteq U_a[/tex] for some a. (That is where I realized you could use compactness...)

Edit: one more remark, is that the "regularity is needed" particularly in applying the hint to proving the statement of the problem. And I discussed that in the first reply to Dick.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Guess you didn't need TOO much help then.
 

FAQ: The &quot;support&quot; of a measure

What is the "support" of a measure?

The "support" of a measure refers to the level of acceptance or agreement among individuals or groups for a particular proposal or policy. It can also refer to the number or percentage of people who are in favor of the measure.

Why is the "support" of a measure important?

The level of support for a measure can greatly impact its success or failure. If a measure has high support, it is more likely to be implemented and have a positive impact. On the other hand, if a measure has low support, it may face resistance and struggle to be implemented.

How is the "support" of a measure measured?

The support of a measure can be measured in a variety of ways, such as through surveys, polls, and public opinion data. These methods typically involve asking individuals or groups about their opinions and attitudes towards the measure in question.

What factors can influence the "support" of a measure?

The support of a measure can be influenced by a variety of factors, such as the perceived benefits and drawbacks of the measure, the credibility and trustworthiness of those proposing the measure, and the potential impact on different groups or stakeholders.

How can the "support" of a measure be increased?

The support of a measure can be increased through effective communication and outreach efforts, addressing concerns and objections, and building partnerships and alliances with key stakeholders. It is also important to gather and consider feedback from those who may be directly affected by the measure.

Similar threads

Back
Top