must a measure-preserving and order-preserving bijection have measurable inverse?
Let $E$ and $F$ be measurable subsets of $mathbb{R}$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure $lambda$. We say that $m:Eto F$ is measure-preserving if for each measurable subset $A$ of $F$, the set $m^{-1}(A)$ is also measurable, and $lambda[m^{-1}(A)]=lambda(A)$. We say that it is order-preserving if $xleq yin E$ implies $m(x)leq m(y)$ in $F$.
Conjecture 1. If $m:Eto F$ is a bijection which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving, then $m^{-1}$ is measurable w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure, i.e. for each Lebesgue-measurable subset $A$ of $E$, the image $m(A)$ is also Lebesgue-measurable.
Fact 1. If $m:Eto F$ is a bijection which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving, then $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both strictly order-preserving, i.e. $x<yin E$ if and only if $m(x)<m(y)$ in $F$.
Fact 2. If $A$ is a measurable subset of $E$ and $m(A)$ is a measurable subset of $F$ then $lambda(A)=lambda[m(A)]$.
My idea was to attempt an argument from contradiction. Assume $A$ is a measurable subset of $E$ with $m(A)$ nonmeasurable. By removing at most countably many sets of positive measure if necessary, we can assume that $m(A)$ contains no sets of positive measure. We may also assume that $m(A)$ is contained in some finite interval $[a,b]$. Now $B:=([a,b]cap F)setminus m(A)$ also is nonmeasurable, with $m^{-1}(B)$ disjoint from $A$. Let us remove any sets of positive measure from $B$ as well. Now $C:=m(A)cup B$ is still measurable, because it is equal to $Fcap[a,b]$ with countably many measurable sets removed. Note that $C$ cannot have measure zero since it has nonmeasurable subsets. It follows that $Acup m^{-1}(B)$ has positive measure.
Now let's see if we can bring order into it. Consider the case where there exists a nonmeasurable subset $D$ of $m(A)$ such that $m^{-1}(B)$ does not intersect the interval $(inf D,sup D)$. Then $(inf D,sup D)cap C=(inf D,sup D)cap m(A)=Dsetminus{inf D,sup D}$, which is impossible since $(inf D,sup D)cap C$ is measurable whereas $Dsetminus{inf D,sup D}$ is not. A similar argument holds for $B$. It follows that we can assume without loss of generality that there exists a subset $G$ of $m(A)$ and a subset $H$ of $B$ such that for each $gin G$ and $hin H$ there are measure-zero subsets $A_g$ of $m(A)$ and $B_h$ of $B$ such that $A_g<B_h$ if and only if $g<h$, and $B_h<A_g$ otherwise. As only countably many of the $A_g$'s and $B_h$'s have positive diameter, we may assume without loss of generality that they are all singletons. Now if $x<yin m(A)$ then there is $zin B$ with $x<z<y$. An analogous fact holds for $A$ and $m^{-1}(B)$.
So, to summarize, we have a measurable subset $A$ of $E$, of finite diameter, and a nonmeasurable subset $B$ of $F$ which does not intersect $m(A)$, also of finite diameter, such that $m^{-1}(B)$ is measurable and of finite diameter and does not intersect $A$, $m(A)$ is nonmeasurable and of finite diameter, that $Acup m^{-1}(B)$ and $m(A)cup B$ both have positive measure, neither $m(A)$ nor $B$ contain any subsets of positive measure, and for every $x<yin m(A)$ there is $zin B$ with $x<z<y$, and an analogous fact holds for $A$ and $m^{-1}(B)$, i.e. for any $x<yin A$ there is $zin m^{-1}(B)$ with $x<z<y$.
Is there any way to use those order properties to achieve a contradiction?
real-analysis measure-theory order-theory measurable-functions
add a comment |
Let $E$ and $F$ be measurable subsets of $mathbb{R}$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure $lambda$. We say that $m:Eto F$ is measure-preserving if for each measurable subset $A$ of $F$, the set $m^{-1}(A)$ is also measurable, and $lambda[m^{-1}(A)]=lambda(A)$. We say that it is order-preserving if $xleq yin E$ implies $m(x)leq m(y)$ in $F$.
Conjecture 1. If $m:Eto F$ is a bijection which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving, then $m^{-1}$ is measurable w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure, i.e. for each Lebesgue-measurable subset $A$ of $E$, the image $m(A)$ is also Lebesgue-measurable.
Fact 1. If $m:Eto F$ is a bijection which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving, then $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both strictly order-preserving, i.e. $x<yin E$ if and only if $m(x)<m(y)$ in $F$.
Fact 2. If $A$ is a measurable subset of $E$ and $m(A)$ is a measurable subset of $F$ then $lambda(A)=lambda[m(A)]$.
My idea was to attempt an argument from contradiction. Assume $A$ is a measurable subset of $E$ with $m(A)$ nonmeasurable. By removing at most countably many sets of positive measure if necessary, we can assume that $m(A)$ contains no sets of positive measure. We may also assume that $m(A)$ is contained in some finite interval $[a,b]$. Now $B:=([a,b]cap F)setminus m(A)$ also is nonmeasurable, with $m^{-1}(B)$ disjoint from $A$. Let us remove any sets of positive measure from $B$ as well. Now $C:=m(A)cup B$ is still measurable, because it is equal to $Fcap[a,b]$ with countably many measurable sets removed. Note that $C$ cannot have measure zero since it has nonmeasurable subsets. It follows that $Acup m^{-1}(B)$ has positive measure.
Now let's see if we can bring order into it. Consider the case where there exists a nonmeasurable subset $D$ of $m(A)$ such that $m^{-1}(B)$ does not intersect the interval $(inf D,sup D)$. Then $(inf D,sup D)cap C=(inf D,sup D)cap m(A)=Dsetminus{inf D,sup D}$, which is impossible since $(inf D,sup D)cap C$ is measurable whereas $Dsetminus{inf D,sup D}$ is not. A similar argument holds for $B$. It follows that we can assume without loss of generality that there exists a subset $G$ of $m(A)$ and a subset $H$ of $B$ such that for each $gin G$ and $hin H$ there are measure-zero subsets $A_g$ of $m(A)$ and $B_h$ of $B$ such that $A_g<B_h$ if and only if $g<h$, and $B_h<A_g$ otherwise. As only countably many of the $A_g$'s and $B_h$'s have positive diameter, we may assume without loss of generality that they are all singletons. Now if $x<yin m(A)$ then there is $zin B$ with $x<z<y$. An analogous fact holds for $A$ and $m^{-1}(B)$.
So, to summarize, we have a measurable subset $A$ of $E$, of finite diameter, and a nonmeasurable subset $B$ of $F$ which does not intersect $m(A)$, also of finite diameter, such that $m^{-1}(B)$ is measurable and of finite diameter and does not intersect $A$, $m(A)$ is nonmeasurable and of finite diameter, that $Acup m^{-1}(B)$ and $m(A)cup B$ both have positive measure, neither $m(A)$ nor $B$ contain any subsets of positive measure, and for every $x<yin m(A)$ there is $zin B$ with $x<z<y$, and an analogous fact holds for $A$ and $m^{-1}(B)$, i.e. for any $x<yin A$ there is $zin m^{-1}(B)$ with $x<z<y$.
Is there any way to use those order properties to achieve a contradiction?
real-analysis measure-theory order-theory measurable-functions
add a comment |
Let $E$ and $F$ be measurable subsets of $mathbb{R}$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure $lambda$. We say that $m:Eto F$ is measure-preserving if for each measurable subset $A$ of $F$, the set $m^{-1}(A)$ is also measurable, and $lambda[m^{-1}(A)]=lambda(A)$. We say that it is order-preserving if $xleq yin E$ implies $m(x)leq m(y)$ in $F$.
Conjecture 1. If $m:Eto F$ is a bijection which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving, then $m^{-1}$ is measurable w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure, i.e. for each Lebesgue-measurable subset $A$ of $E$, the image $m(A)$ is also Lebesgue-measurable.
Fact 1. If $m:Eto F$ is a bijection which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving, then $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both strictly order-preserving, i.e. $x<yin E$ if and only if $m(x)<m(y)$ in $F$.
Fact 2. If $A$ is a measurable subset of $E$ and $m(A)$ is a measurable subset of $F$ then $lambda(A)=lambda[m(A)]$.
My idea was to attempt an argument from contradiction. Assume $A$ is a measurable subset of $E$ with $m(A)$ nonmeasurable. By removing at most countably many sets of positive measure if necessary, we can assume that $m(A)$ contains no sets of positive measure. We may also assume that $m(A)$ is contained in some finite interval $[a,b]$. Now $B:=([a,b]cap F)setminus m(A)$ also is nonmeasurable, with $m^{-1}(B)$ disjoint from $A$. Let us remove any sets of positive measure from $B$ as well. Now $C:=m(A)cup B$ is still measurable, because it is equal to $Fcap[a,b]$ with countably many measurable sets removed. Note that $C$ cannot have measure zero since it has nonmeasurable subsets. It follows that $Acup m^{-1}(B)$ has positive measure.
Now let's see if we can bring order into it. Consider the case where there exists a nonmeasurable subset $D$ of $m(A)$ such that $m^{-1}(B)$ does not intersect the interval $(inf D,sup D)$. Then $(inf D,sup D)cap C=(inf D,sup D)cap m(A)=Dsetminus{inf D,sup D}$, which is impossible since $(inf D,sup D)cap C$ is measurable whereas $Dsetminus{inf D,sup D}$ is not. A similar argument holds for $B$. It follows that we can assume without loss of generality that there exists a subset $G$ of $m(A)$ and a subset $H$ of $B$ such that for each $gin G$ and $hin H$ there are measure-zero subsets $A_g$ of $m(A)$ and $B_h$ of $B$ such that $A_g<B_h$ if and only if $g<h$, and $B_h<A_g$ otherwise. As only countably many of the $A_g$'s and $B_h$'s have positive diameter, we may assume without loss of generality that they are all singletons. Now if $x<yin m(A)$ then there is $zin B$ with $x<z<y$. An analogous fact holds for $A$ and $m^{-1}(B)$.
So, to summarize, we have a measurable subset $A$ of $E$, of finite diameter, and a nonmeasurable subset $B$ of $F$ which does not intersect $m(A)$, also of finite diameter, such that $m^{-1}(B)$ is measurable and of finite diameter and does not intersect $A$, $m(A)$ is nonmeasurable and of finite diameter, that $Acup m^{-1}(B)$ and $m(A)cup B$ both have positive measure, neither $m(A)$ nor $B$ contain any subsets of positive measure, and for every $x<yin m(A)$ there is $zin B$ with $x<z<y$, and an analogous fact holds for $A$ and $m^{-1}(B)$, i.e. for any $x<yin A$ there is $zin m^{-1}(B)$ with $x<z<y$.
Is there any way to use those order properties to achieve a contradiction?
real-analysis measure-theory order-theory measurable-functions
Let $E$ and $F$ be measurable subsets of $mathbb{R}$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure $lambda$. We say that $m:Eto F$ is measure-preserving if for each measurable subset $A$ of $F$, the set $m^{-1}(A)$ is also measurable, and $lambda[m^{-1}(A)]=lambda(A)$. We say that it is order-preserving if $xleq yin E$ implies $m(x)leq m(y)$ in $F$.
Conjecture 1. If $m:Eto F$ is a bijection which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving, then $m^{-1}$ is measurable w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure, i.e. for each Lebesgue-measurable subset $A$ of $E$, the image $m(A)$ is also Lebesgue-measurable.
Fact 1. If $m:Eto F$ is a bijection which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving, then $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both strictly order-preserving, i.e. $x<yin E$ if and only if $m(x)<m(y)$ in $F$.
Fact 2. If $A$ is a measurable subset of $E$ and $m(A)$ is a measurable subset of $F$ then $lambda(A)=lambda[m(A)]$.
My idea was to attempt an argument from contradiction. Assume $A$ is a measurable subset of $E$ with $m(A)$ nonmeasurable. By removing at most countably many sets of positive measure if necessary, we can assume that $m(A)$ contains no sets of positive measure. We may also assume that $m(A)$ is contained in some finite interval $[a,b]$. Now $B:=([a,b]cap F)setminus m(A)$ also is nonmeasurable, with $m^{-1}(B)$ disjoint from $A$. Let us remove any sets of positive measure from $B$ as well. Now $C:=m(A)cup B$ is still measurable, because it is equal to $Fcap[a,b]$ with countably many measurable sets removed. Note that $C$ cannot have measure zero since it has nonmeasurable subsets. It follows that $Acup m^{-1}(B)$ has positive measure.
Now let's see if we can bring order into it. Consider the case where there exists a nonmeasurable subset $D$ of $m(A)$ such that $m^{-1}(B)$ does not intersect the interval $(inf D,sup D)$. Then $(inf D,sup D)cap C=(inf D,sup D)cap m(A)=Dsetminus{inf D,sup D}$, which is impossible since $(inf D,sup D)cap C$ is measurable whereas $Dsetminus{inf D,sup D}$ is not. A similar argument holds for $B$. It follows that we can assume without loss of generality that there exists a subset $G$ of $m(A)$ and a subset $H$ of $B$ such that for each $gin G$ and $hin H$ there are measure-zero subsets $A_g$ of $m(A)$ and $B_h$ of $B$ such that $A_g<B_h$ if and only if $g<h$, and $B_h<A_g$ otherwise. As only countably many of the $A_g$'s and $B_h$'s have positive diameter, we may assume without loss of generality that they are all singletons. Now if $x<yin m(A)$ then there is $zin B$ with $x<z<y$. An analogous fact holds for $A$ and $m^{-1}(B)$.
So, to summarize, we have a measurable subset $A$ of $E$, of finite diameter, and a nonmeasurable subset $B$ of $F$ which does not intersect $m(A)$, also of finite diameter, such that $m^{-1}(B)$ is measurable and of finite diameter and does not intersect $A$, $m(A)$ is nonmeasurable and of finite diameter, that $Acup m^{-1}(B)$ and $m(A)cup B$ both have positive measure, neither $m(A)$ nor $B$ contain any subsets of positive measure, and for every $x<yin m(A)$ there is $zin B$ with $x<z<y$, and an analogous fact holds for $A$ and $m^{-1}(B)$, i.e. for any $x<yin A$ there is $zin m^{-1}(B)$ with $x<z<y$.
Is there any way to use those order properties to achieve a contradiction?
real-analysis measure-theory order-theory measurable-functions
real-analysis measure-theory order-theory measurable-functions
edited Dec 10 '18 at 22:42
asked Nov 27 '18 at 3:21
Ben W
1,995615
1,995615
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It is easy to see that every order-preserving map $f:E to F$ is measurable, because the preimage of any interval is an intersection of an interval with $E$, so it is measurable. Since the inverse of an order-preserving bijection $m$ is order-preserving, it is measurable. The assumption of preserving Lebesgue measure is not needed.
Added: The above solution assumes the standard definition of measurability for real-valued functions: $f$ is Lebesgue-measurable if every sub-level set ${ x in E: f(x)<alpha }$ is Lebesgue-measurable, or equivalently if every preimage of a Borel set is Lebesgue measurable. Using the alternative definition that $f$ is measurable if every preimage of a Lebesgue-measurable set is Lebesgue-measurable, one indeed needs at least a weak form of the measure-preserving property. Since the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra is the completion of the Borel $sigma$-algebra with respect to Lebesgue measure, a set $A$ is Lebesgue measurable iff there exists a Borel set $B$ with $lambda (A Delta B) = 0$, where $A Delta B = (A setminus B) cup (B setminus A)$ is the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$. Then, using $f=m^{-1}$, we have $f^{-1}(B) = m(B)$ is a Borel set by the argument above, and $f^{-1}(A) Delta f^{-1}(B) = m(A)Delta m(B) = m(A Delta B)$ is a Lebesgue null set because $m$ preserves Lebesgue measure. (We really only need that $m$-images of null sets are null sets here, which follows from the fact that every Lebesgue null set is contained in a Borel null set, whose image is then again a Borel null set.) This shows that $f^{-1}(B)$ is Lebesgue measurable, so that $f=m^{-1}$ is measurable with respect to this definition, too.
Sorry but when I say "measurable" I mean w.r.t the Lebesgue measure not the Borel measure.
– Ben W
Dec 10 '18 at 22:40
Ben W: Typically even Lebesgue-measurability for functions is defined as the property that sub-level sets ${ xin E : f(x) < alpha }$ are Lebesgue measurable, or equivalently that preimages of Borel sets are Lebesgue measurable. Do you mean the definition that preimages of Lebesgue measurable sets are Lebesgue measurable?
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 22:57
Ben W: I added an additional argument for this alternative definition of measurability.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 23:10
I appreciate the addendum but $m$ is already measurable by definition of measure-preserving transformations. I need to show that $m^{-1}$ is measurable, or exhibit a counterexample.
– Ben W
Dec 11 '18 at 1:22
Ben W: Oops, sorry, but the argument is identical, except that we only need that images of null sets are null sets, not preimages. Argument is fixed now.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 11 '18 at 2:21
|
show 9 more comments
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
});
}
});
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%2f3015285%2fmust-a-measure-preserving-and-order-preserving-bijection-have-measurable-inverse%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
It is easy to see that every order-preserving map $f:E to F$ is measurable, because the preimage of any interval is an intersection of an interval with $E$, so it is measurable. Since the inverse of an order-preserving bijection $m$ is order-preserving, it is measurable. The assumption of preserving Lebesgue measure is not needed.
Added: The above solution assumes the standard definition of measurability for real-valued functions: $f$ is Lebesgue-measurable if every sub-level set ${ x in E: f(x)<alpha }$ is Lebesgue-measurable, or equivalently if every preimage of a Borel set is Lebesgue measurable. Using the alternative definition that $f$ is measurable if every preimage of a Lebesgue-measurable set is Lebesgue-measurable, one indeed needs at least a weak form of the measure-preserving property. Since the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra is the completion of the Borel $sigma$-algebra with respect to Lebesgue measure, a set $A$ is Lebesgue measurable iff there exists a Borel set $B$ with $lambda (A Delta B) = 0$, where $A Delta B = (A setminus B) cup (B setminus A)$ is the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$. Then, using $f=m^{-1}$, we have $f^{-1}(B) = m(B)$ is a Borel set by the argument above, and $f^{-1}(A) Delta f^{-1}(B) = m(A)Delta m(B) = m(A Delta B)$ is a Lebesgue null set because $m$ preserves Lebesgue measure. (We really only need that $m$-images of null sets are null sets here, which follows from the fact that every Lebesgue null set is contained in a Borel null set, whose image is then again a Borel null set.) This shows that $f^{-1}(B)$ is Lebesgue measurable, so that $f=m^{-1}$ is measurable with respect to this definition, too.
Sorry but when I say "measurable" I mean w.r.t the Lebesgue measure not the Borel measure.
– Ben W
Dec 10 '18 at 22:40
Ben W: Typically even Lebesgue-measurability for functions is defined as the property that sub-level sets ${ xin E : f(x) < alpha }$ are Lebesgue measurable, or equivalently that preimages of Borel sets are Lebesgue measurable. Do you mean the definition that preimages of Lebesgue measurable sets are Lebesgue measurable?
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 22:57
Ben W: I added an additional argument for this alternative definition of measurability.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 23:10
I appreciate the addendum but $m$ is already measurable by definition of measure-preserving transformations. I need to show that $m^{-1}$ is measurable, or exhibit a counterexample.
– Ben W
Dec 11 '18 at 1:22
Ben W: Oops, sorry, but the argument is identical, except that we only need that images of null sets are null sets, not preimages. Argument is fixed now.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 11 '18 at 2:21
|
show 9 more comments
It is easy to see that every order-preserving map $f:E to F$ is measurable, because the preimage of any interval is an intersection of an interval with $E$, so it is measurable. Since the inverse of an order-preserving bijection $m$ is order-preserving, it is measurable. The assumption of preserving Lebesgue measure is not needed.
Added: The above solution assumes the standard definition of measurability for real-valued functions: $f$ is Lebesgue-measurable if every sub-level set ${ x in E: f(x)<alpha }$ is Lebesgue-measurable, or equivalently if every preimage of a Borel set is Lebesgue measurable. Using the alternative definition that $f$ is measurable if every preimage of a Lebesgue-measurable set is Lebesgue-measurable, one indeed needs at least a weak form of the measure-preserving property. Since the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra is the completion of the Borel $sigma$-algebra with respect to Lebesgue measure, a set $A$ is Lebesgue measurable iff there exists a Borel set $B$ with $lambda (A Delta B) = 0$, where $A Delta B = (A setminus B) cup (B setminus A)$ is the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$. Then, using $f=m^{-1}$, we have $f^{-1}(B) = m(B)$ is a Borel set by the argument above, and $f^{-1}(A) Delta f^{-1}(B) = m(A)Delta m(B) = m(A Delta B)$ is a Lebesgue null set because $m$ preserves Lebesgue measure. (We really only need that $m$-images of null sets are null sets here, which follows from the fact that every Lebesgue null set is contained in a Borel null set, whose image is then again a Borel null set.) This shows that $f^{-1}(B)$ is Lebesgue measurable, so that $f=m^{-1}$ is measurable with respect to this definition, too.
Sorry but when I say "measurable" I mean w.r.t the Lebesgue measure not the Borel measure.
– Ben W
Dec 10 '18 at 22:40
Ben W: Typically even Lebesgue-measurability for functions is defined as the property that sub-level sets ${ xin E : f(x) < alpha }$ are Lebesgue measurable, or equivalently that preimages of Borel sets are Lebesgue measurable. Do you mean the definition that preimages of Lebesgue measurable sets are Lebesgue measurable?
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 22:57
Ben W: I added an additional argument for this alternative definition of measurability.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 23:10
I appreciate the addendum but $m$ is already measurable by definition of measure-preserving transformations. I need to show that $m^{-1}$ is measurable, or exhibit a counterexample.
– Ben W
Dec 11 '18 at 1:22
Ben W: Oops, sorry, but the argument is identical, except that we only need that images of null sets are null sets, not preimages. Argument is fixed now.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 11 '18 at 2:21
|
show 9 more comments
It is easy to see that every order-preserving map $f:E to F$ is measurable, because the preimage of any interval is an intersection of an interval with $E$, so it is measurable. Since the inverse of an order-preserving bijection $m$ is order-preserving, it is measurable. The assumption of preserving Lebesgue measure is not needed.
Added: The above solution assumes the standard definition of measurability for real-valued functions: $f$ is Lebesgue-measurable if every sub-level set ${ x in E: f(x)<alpha }$ is Lebesgue-measurable, or equivalently if every preimage of a Borel set is Lebesgue measurable. Using the alternative definition that $f$ is measurable if every preimage of a Lebesgue-measurable set is Lebesgue-measurable, one indeed needs at least a weak form of the measure-preserving property. Since the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra is the completion of the Borel $sigma$-algebra with respect to Lebesgue measure, a set $A$ is Lebesgue measurable iff there exists a Borel set $B$ with $lambda (A Delta B) = 0$, where $A Delta B = (A setminus B) cup (B setminus A)$ is the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$. Then, using $f=m^{-1}$, we have $f^{-1}(B) = m(B)$ is a Borel set by the argument above, and $f^{-1}(A) Delta f^{-1}(B) = m(A)Delta m(B) = m(A Delta B)$ is a Lebesgue null set because $m$ preserves Lebesgue measure. (We really only need that $m$-images of null sets are null sets here, which follows from the fact that every Lebesgue null set is contained in a Borel null set, whose image is then again a Borel null set.) This shows that $f^{-1}(B)$ is Lebesgue measurable, so that $f=m^{-1}$ is measurable with respect to this definition, too.
It is easy to see that every order-preserving map $f:E to F$ is measurable, because the preimage of any interval is an intersection of an interval with $E$, so it is measurable. Since the inverse of an order-preserving bijection $m$ is order-preserving, it is measurable. The assumption of preserving Lebesgue measure is not needed.
Added: The above solution assumes the standard definition of measurability for real-valued functions: $f$ is Lebesgue-measurable if every sub-level set ${ x in E: f(x)<alpha }$ is Lebesgue-measurable, or equivalently if every preimage of a Borel set is Lebesgue measurable. Using the alternative definition that $f$ is measurable if every preimage of a Lebesgue-measurable set is Lebesgue-measurable, one indeed needs at least a weak form of the measure-preserving property. Since the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra is the completion of the Borel $sigma$-algebra with respect to Lebesgue measure, a set $A$ is Lebesgue measurable iff there exists a Borel set $B$ with $lambda (A Delta B) = 0$, where $A Delta B = (A setminus B) cup (B setminus A)$ is the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$. Then, using $f=m^{-1}$, we have $f^{-1}(B) = m(B)$ is a Borel set by the argument above, and $f^{-1}(A) Delta f^{-1}(B) = m(A)Delta m(B) = m(A Delta B)$ is a Lebesgue null set because $m$ preserves Lebesgue measure. (We really only need that $m$-images of null sets are null sets here, which follows from the fact that every Lebesgue null set is contained in a Borel null set, whose image is then again a Borel null set.) This shows that $f^{-1}(B)$ is Lebesgue measurable, so that $f=m^{-1}$ is measurable with respect to this definition, too.
edited Dec 11 '18 at 3:07
answered Dec 10 '18 at 16:50
Lukas Geyer
13.3k1454
13.3k1454
Sorry but when I say "measurable" I mean w.r.t the Lebesgue measure not the Borel measure.
– Ben W
Dec 10 '18 at 22:40
Ben W: Typically even Lebesgue-measurability for functions is defined as the property that sub-level sets ${ xin E : f(x) < alpha }$ are Lebesgue measurable, or equivalently that preimages of Borel sets are Lebesgue measurable. Do you mean the definition that preimages of Lebesgue measurable sets are Lebesgue measurable?
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 22:57
Ben W: I added an additional argument for this alternative definition of measurability.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 23:10
I appreciate the addendum but $m$ is already measurable by definition of measure-preserving transformations. I need to show that $m^{-1}$ is measurable, or exhibit a counterexample.
– Ben W
Dec 11 '18 at 1:22
Ben W: Oops, sorry, but the argument is identical, except that we only need that images of null sets are null sets, not preimages. Argument is fixed now.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 11 '18 at 2:21
|
show 9 more comments
Sorry but when I say "measurable" I mean w.r.t the Lebesgue measure not the Borel measure.
– Ben W
Dec 10 '18 at 22:40
Ben W: Typically even Lebesgue-measurability for functions is defined as the property that sub-level sets ${ xin E : f(x) < alpha }$ are Lebesgue measurable, or equivalently that preimages of Borel sets are Lebesgue measurable. Do you mean the definition that preimages of Lebesgue measurable sets are Lebesgue measurable?
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 22:57
Ben W: I added an additional argument for this alternative definition of measurability.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 23:10
I appreciate the addendum but $m$ is already measurable by definition of measure-preserving transformations. I need to show that $m^{-1}$ is measurable, or exhibit a counterexample.
– Ben W
Dec 11 '18 at 1:22
Ben W: Oops, sorry, but the argument is identical, except that we only need that images of null sets are null sets, not preimages. Argument is fixed now.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 11 '18 at 2:21
Sorry but when I say "measurable" I mean w.r.t the Lebesgue measure not the Borel measure.
– Ben W
Dec 10 '18 at 22:40
Sorry but when I say "measurable" I mean w.r.t the Lebesgue measure not the Borel measure.
– Ben W
Dec 10 '18 at 22:40
Ben W: Typically even Lebesgue-measurability for functions is defined as the property that sub-level sets ${ xin E : f(x) < alpha }$ are Lebesgue measurable, or equivalently that preimages of Borel sets are Lebesgue measurable. Do you mean the definition that preimages of Lebesgue measurable sets are Lebesgue measurable?
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 22:57
Ben W: Typically even Lebesgue-measurability for functions is defined as the property that sub-level sets ${ xin E : f(x) < alpha }$ are Lebesgue measurable, or equivalently that preimages of Borel sets are Lebesgue measurable. Do you mean the definition that preimages of Lebesgue measurable sets are Lebesgue measurable?
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 22:57
Ben W: I added an additional argument for this alternative definition of measurability.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 23:10
Ben W: I added an additional argument for this alternative definition of measurability.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 10 '18 at 23:10
I appreciate the addendum but $m$ is already measurable by definition of measure-preserving transformations. I need to show that $m^{-1}$ is measurable, or exhibit a counterexample.
– Ben W
Dec 11 '18 at 1:22
I appreciate the addendum but $m$ is already measurable by definition of measure-preserving transformations. I need to show that $m^{-1}$ is measurable, or exhibit a counterexample.
– Ben W
Dec 11 '18 at 1:22
Ben W: Oops, sorry, but the argument is identical, except that we only need that images of null sets are null sets, not preimages. Argument is fixed now.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 11 '18 at 2:21
Ben W: Oops, sorry, but the argument is identical, except that we only need that images of null sets are null sets, not preimages. Argument is fixed now.
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 11 '18 at 2:21
|
show 9 more comments
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%2f3015285%2fmust-a-measure-preserving-and-order-preserving-bijection-have-measurable-inverse%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