Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2010
    • (edited May 31st 2010)

    Here are my rough thoughts on an entry for the Lebesgue measure as per Eric’s suggestion of putting them here:

    The Lebesgue measure’s origins can be traced to the broader theory of Lebesgue integration. The original purpose of the latter, in broad terms, was to expand the class of integrable functions in order to give meaning to functions that are not Riemann integrable. In order to accomplish this, the basic properties of the concept of the length of an interval must be understood. This then leads to the need to fully define the concept of measure, particularly in relation to sets. We begin with a lemma and a corollary.

    Lemma: _Let I be an interval, I=I 1I 2I=I_{1} \cup I_{2} \cup \cdots where I 1, 2,I_{1}, _{2}, \ldots are disjoint intervals. Then |I|= j=1 |I j||I|=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}|I_{j}| (interpreted to mean that if one side ++\infty, then so is the other, where j=1 |I j|\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}|I_{j}| can be ++\infty, either because one of the summands is ++\infty or because the series diverges).

    Corollary: If I is any interval, then

    |I|=inf{ j=1 |I j|:I j=1 I j |I|=inf\left\{\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}|I_{j}|:I \subseteq \bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty} I_{j}\right.

    where {I j}\{I_{j}\} is any countable covering of I by intervals. }\}.

    Now suppose B is an arbitrary set. In order for B to be measurable, we must have |B| j=1 |I j||B| \le \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}|I_{j}| where j=1 I j\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty} I_{j} is any countable covering of B by intervals. We must also have |B| j=1 |I j||B|\le \bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty} |I_{j}| where the infinum is taken over all countable coverings of B by intervals.

    Definition: We may define the Lebesgue measure as being

    |B|=inf{ j=1 |I j|:B j=1 I j}. |B|=inf\left\{\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}|I_{j}|:B \subseteq \bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty} I_{j}\right\}.

    Note that once the Lebesgue measure for is known for open sets, the outer regularity property allows us to find it for all Borel sets.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2010

    Huh? That seems pretty polished to me :)

    See Lebesgue measure

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2010

    Is there a reference?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2010

    It would be cool to address this from the nPOV in conjunction with Carathéodory’s extension theorem. I can smell some universal property somewhere in there.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2010
    • (edited May 31st 2010)

    Personally I like the presentation in Strichartz’s The Way of Analysis. I think it’s a very intuitive and readable presentation.

    Edit: I added this to the reference list even though there isn’t an online version. It’s just such a great discussion I think everyone should read it.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2013
    Lebesgue measure on Cartesian space is characterized by being translation invariant. Is there an intuitive reason why Lebesgue measure is also rotationally invariant?
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2013

    More generally it is invariant with respect to linear transformations TT of determinant 11. Intuitively, the image of a parallelpiped T([a 1,b 1]××[a n,b n])T([a_1, b_1] \times \ldots \times [a_n, b_n]) can be chopped up into finitely many measurable pieces (polyhedra, in fact) and then rearranged in tangram fashion into another copy of [a 1,b 1]××[a n,b n][a_1, b_1] \times \ldots \times [a_n, b_n]. To see this, it is enough to consider the special case T=E i,j,λT = E_{i, j, \lambda} of an elementary row operation (that adds λ\lambda times the j thj^{th} row to the i thi^{th} row), since any TT of determinant 11 is a composite of such. There it is not hard to specify a single chop-and-rearrange (consider the 22-dimensional case to get the general idea).

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2013
    Ah, thanks, your answer really helped to clarify my intuition. Now I understand the slogan "under a linear transformation, the determinant measures the change in infinitesimal volume" better.
    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2013

    Okay, good. (BTW, I did get your email; I just haven’t quite figured out what I want to say in response.) I forgot to mention in my comment above that each “rearrangement” (after a “chop”) is actually a translation, which reduces the argument to the translation-invariance of Lebesgue measure.