TheoremBase

Following Rudin's construction: positivity makes the functional monotone, partitions of unity give subadditivity on open sets and hence an outer measure, Urysohn functions identify its value on compact sets, a disjoint-support argument shows open sets are Carathéodory measurable, and inner regularity on open sets comes from the supports of the approximating functions.

Proof

Throughout, sums, scalar multiples and products of elements of Cc(X)C_{c}(X) lie in Cc(X)C_{c}(X), with the support inclusions of Continuous Functions with Compact Support: the Zero Function, Closure under Operations, Vanishing off the Support, Existence of the Maximum Modulus, and Uniform Continuity (ii), and every f∈Cc(X)f\in C_{c}(X) vanishes off supp⁡f\operatorname{supp}f by Continuous Functions with Compact Support: the Zero Function, Closure under Operations, Vanishing off the Support, Existence of the Maximum Modulus, and Uniform Continuity (iii). For an open set V⊆XV\subseteq X we write f≺Vf\prec V if f∈Cc(X)f\in C_{c}(X), 0≤f≤10\le f\le1 and supp⁡f⊆V\operatorname{supp}f\subseteq V; thus μ(V)=sup⁡{Λf:f≺V}\mu(V)=\sup\{\Lambda f:f\prec V\}.

Step 1 (monotonicity of Λ\Lambda). If f,g∈Cc(X)f,g\in C_{c}(X) and f≤gf\le g, then g−f∈Cc(X)g-f\in C_{c}(X) and g−f≥0g-f\ge0, so by linearity and positivity

Λg−Λf=Λ(g−f)≥0.\Lambda g-\Lambda f=\Lambda(g-f)\ge0 .

Also Λ0=Λ(0⋅0)=0⋅Λ0=0\Lambda0=\Lambda(0\cdot0)=0\cdot\Lambda0=0.

Step 2 (elementary properties of μ\mu and μ∗\mu^{*}). The constant function 00 satisfies 0≺V0\prec V for every open VV, its support being empty by Continuous Functions with Compact Support: the Zero Function, Closure under Operations, Vanishing off the Support, Existence of the Maximum Modulus, and Uniform Continuity (i); so Λ0=0\Lambda0=0 lies in the set defining μ(V)\mu(V), and μ(V)∈[0,∞]\mu(V)\in[0,\infty]. If V⊆WV\subseteq W are open, every f≺Vf\prec V satisfies f≺Wf\prec W, so μ(V)≤μ(W)\mu(V)\le\mu(W). If f≺∅f\prec\emptyset then supp⁡f=∅\operatorname{supp}f=\emptyset and f=0f=0; hence μ(∅)=0\mu(\emptyset)=0. Since XX is open, the set defining μ∗(E)\mu^{*}(E) is a nonempty subset of [0,∞][0,\infty], so μ∗(E)∈[0,∞]\mu^{*}(E)\in[0,\infty] for every E⊆XE\subseteq X, and μ∗(∅)≤μ(∅)=0\mu^{*}(\emptyset)\le\mu(\emptyset)=0. If E⊆F⊆XE\subseteq F\subseteq X, every open set containing FF contains EE, so μ∗(E)≤μ∗(F)\mu^{*}(E)\le\mu^{*}(F). Finally, for open VV the set VV itself is admitted in the infimum defining μ∗(V)\mu^{*}(V), and μ(V)≤μ(W)\mu(V)\le\mu(W) for every open W⊇VW\supseteq V; hence μ∗(V)=μ(V)\mu^{*}(V)=\mu(V), which is the second assertion of (i).

Step 3 (finite subadditivity on open sets). Let n∈Nn\in\mathbb{N}, let V1,…,Vn⊆XV_{1},\dots,V_{n}\subseteq X be open and V=V1∪⋯∪VnV=V_{1}\cup\dots\cup V_{n}; we show μ(V)≤∑i=1nμ(Vi)\mu(V)\le\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mu(V_{i}). Let g≺Vg\prec V. Its support K=supp⁡gK=\operatorname{supp}g is compact and contained in VV, so Thickenings, Neighbourhoods with Compact Closure, Urysohn Functions and Partitions of Unity in a Locally Compact Metric Space (iv) gives h1,…,hn∈Cc(X)h_{1},\dots,h_{n}\in C_{c}(X) with 0≤hi≤10\le h_{i}\le1, supp⁡hi⊆Vi\operatorname{supp}h_{i}\subseteq V_{i}, ∑ihi≤1\sum_{i}h_{i}\le1 on XX and ∑ihi=1\sum_{i}h_{i}=1 on KK. Each product high_{i}g satisfies 0≤hig≤10\le h_{i}g\le1 and supp⁡(hig)⊆supp⁡hi⊆Vi\operatorname{supp}(h_{i}g)\subseteq\operatorname{supp}h_{i}\subseteq V_{i}, so hig≺Vih_{i}g\prec V_{i}; and g=∑i=1nhigg=\sum_{i=1}^{n}h_{i}g, because ∑ihi(x)=1\sum_{i}h_{i}(x)=1 for x∈Kx\in K while g(x)=0g(x)=0 for x∉Kx\notin K. By linearity,

Λg=∑i=1nΛ(hig)≤∑i=1nμ(Vi),\Lambda g=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Lambda(h_{i}g)\le\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mu(V_{i}),

and taking the supremum over g≺Vg\prec V gives the claim.

Step 4 (countable subadditivity). Let (Am)m∈N(A_{m})_{m\in\mathbb{N}} be a sequence of subsets of XX and A=⋃mAmA=\bigcup_{m}A_{m}. If ∑mμ∗(Am)=∞\sum_{m}\mu^{*}(A_{m})=\infty there is nothing to prove, so let every μ∗(Am)\mu^{*}(A_{m}) be real and the sum finite, and let ε>0\varepsilon>0. By the definition of μ∗(Am)\mu^{*}(A_{m}) as an infimum there is, for each mm, an open set Vm⊇AmV_{m}\supseteq A_{m} with μ(Vm)<μ∗(Am)+2−mε\mu(V_{m})<\mu^{*}(A_{m})+2^{-m}\varepsilon; we fix such a sequence (Vm)(V_{m}) (by countable choice, which follows from the setting's standing hypothesis of dependent choice). The set V=⋃mVmV=\bigcup_{m}V_{m} is open and contains AA. Let g≺Vg\prec V. The open sets UN=V1∪⋯∪VNU_{N}=V_{1}\cup\dots\cup V_{N} (N∈NN\in\mathbb{N}) increase and their union VV contains the compact set supp⁡g\operatorname{supp}g, so supp⁡g⊆UN\operatorname{supp}g\subseteq U_{N} for some NN by Compact Subsets of a Metric Space: Covers by Open Sets, Finite Unions and Increasing Covers; Sublevel Sets of the Distance and Closed Balls (iii). Then g≺UNg\prec U_{N}, and by Step 3

Λg≤μ(UN)≤∑m=1Nμ(Vm)≤∑m=1N(μ∗(Am)+2−mε)≤∑m∈Nμ∗(Am)+ε.\Lambda g\le\mu(U_{N})\le\sum_{m=1}^{N}\mu(V_{m})\le\sum_{m=1}^{N}\bigl(\mu^{*}(A_{m})+2^{-m}\varepsilon\bigr)\le\sum_{m\in\mathbb{N}}\mu^{*}(A_{m})+\varepsilon .

Taking the supremum over g≺Vg\prec V and using Step 2, μ∗(A)≤μ(V)≤∑mμ∗(Am)+ε\mu^{*}(A)\le\mu(V)\le\sum_{m}\mu^{*}(A_{m})+\varepsilon; as ε>0\varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, μ∗(A)≤∑mμ∗(Am)\mu^{*}(A)\le\sum_{m}\mu^{*}(A_{m}). Together with Step 2 this shows that μ∗\mu^{*} is an outer measure on XX, completing the proof of (i).

Step 5 (compact sets: the upper bound). Let K⊆XK\subseteq X be compact and put I(K)=inf⁡{Λf:f∈Cc(X), f≥1K}I(K)=\inf\{\Lambda f:f\in C_{c}(X),\ f\ge\mathbf{1}_{K}\}. Let f∈Cc(X)f\in C_{c}(X) with f≥1Kf\ge\mathbf{1}_{K}, so in particular f≥0f\ge0, and let 0<α<10<\alpha<1. The set Vα={x∈X:f(x)>α}V_{\alpha}=\{x\in X:f(x)>\alpha\} is open, as ff is continuous, and contains KK. If g≺Vαg\prec V_{\alpha} then αg≤f\alpha g\le f: for x∈Vαx\in V_{\alpha} we have αg(x)≤α<f(x)\alpha g(x)\le\alpha<f(x), and for x∉Vαx\notin V_{\alpha} we have x∉supp⁡gx\notin\operatorname{supp}g, so αg(x)=0≤f(x)\alpha g(x)=0\le f(x). By Step 1, αΛg≤Λf\alpha\Lambda g\le\Lambda f for every g≺Vαg\prec V_{\alpha}, hence

μ∗(K)≤μ(Vα)≤α−1Λf.\mu^{*}(K)\le\mu(V_{\alpha})\le\alpha^{-1}\Lambda f .

As this holds for every α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1), μ∗(K)≤Λf\mu^{*}(K)\le\Lambda f, and taking the infimum over ff gives μ∗(K)≤I(K)\mu^{*}(K)\le I(K).

Step 6 (compact sets: the lower bound). Let V⊇KV\supseteq K be open. By Thickenings, Neighbourhoods with Compact Closure, Urysohn Functions and Partitions of Unity in a Locally Compact Metric Space (iii) there is f∈Cc(X)f\in C_{c}(X) with 0≤f≤10\le f\le1, f=1f=1 on KK and supp⁡f⊆V\operatorname{supp}f\subseteq V. Then f≥1Kf\ge\mathbf{1}_{K} and f≺Vf\prec V, so I(K)≤Λf≤μ(V)I(K)\le\Lambda f\le\mu(V); taking the infimum over VV gives I(K)≤μ∗(K)I(K)\le\mu^{*}(K). Thus μ∗(K)=I(K)\mu^{*}(K)=I(K), and taking V=XV=X shows μ∗(K)≤Λf<∞\mu^{*}(K)\le\Lambda f<\infty for the function ff so obtained. This proves (ii).

Step 7 (open sets are μ∗\mu^{*}-measurable). Let U⊆XU\subseteq X be open. By Carathéodory's Theorem: the Measurable Sets of an Outer Measure Form a σ-Algebra on Which It Is a Measure (i) it suffices to show μ∗(A∩U)+μ∗(A∖U)≤μ∗(A)\mu^{*}(A\cap U)+\mu^{*}(A\setminus U)\le\mu^{*}(A) for every A⊆XA\subseteq X, and for this that μ∗(A∩U)+μ∗(A∖U)≤μ(V)\mu^{*}(A\cap U)+\mu^{*}(A\setminus U)\le\mu(V) for every open V⊇AV\supseteq A. This is clear if μ(V)=∞\mu(V)=\infty, so let μ(V)<∞\mu(V)<\infty and ε>0\varepsilon>0. Since μ(V∩U)≤μ(V)<∞\mu(V\cap U)\le\mu(V)<\infty, there is f≺V∩Uf\prec V\cap U with Λf>μ(V∩U)−ε\Lambda f>\mu(V\cap U)-\varepsilon. Its support D=supp⁡fD=\operatorname{supp}f is compact, hence closed, so V∖DV\setminus D is open with μ(V∖D)≤μ(V)<∞\mu(V\setminus D)\le\mu(V)<\infty, and there is g≺V∖Dg\prec V\setminus D with Λg>μ(V∖D)−ε\Lambda g>\mu(V\setminus D)-\varepsilon. Now f+g≺Vf+g\prec V: its support lies in supp⁡f∪supp⁡g⊆V\operatorname{supp}f\cup\operatorname{supp}g\subseteq V, and 0≤f+g≤10\le f+g\le1 because ff vanishes off DD while gg vanishes on DD. Since A∩U⊆V∩UA\cap U\subseteq V\cap U and A∖U⊆V∖DA\setminus U\subseteq V\setminus D (as D⊆UD\subseteq U), Step 2 gives

μ(V)≥Λf+Λg>μ(V∩U)+μ(V∖D)−2ε≥μ∗(A∩U)+μ∗(A∖U)−2ε.\mu(V)\ge\Lambda f+\Lambda g>\mu(V\cap U)+\mu(V\setminus D)-2\varepsilon\ge\mu^{*}(A\cap U)+\mu^{*}(A\setminus U)-2\varepsilon .

As ε>0\varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, the claim follows.

Step 8 (the Borel measure). By Carathéodory's Theorem: the Measurable Sets of an Outer Measure Form a σ-Algebra on Which It Is a Measure (ii) the set M(μ∗)\mathcal{M}(\mu^{*}) of μ∗\mu^{*}-measurable sets is a σ\sigma-algebra on XX, and by Step 7 it contains every open set; by The σ-Algebra Generated by a Set of Subsets (ii) it therefore contains the σ\sigma-algebra B(X)\mathcal{B}(X) generated by the open sets. By Carathéodory's Theorem: the Measurable Sets of an Outer Measure Form a σ-Algebra on Which It Is a Measure (iv), μ∗∣M(μ∗)\mu^{*}|_{\mathcal{M}(\mu^{*})} is a measure on (X,M(μ∗))(X,\mathcal{M}(\mu^{*})). Its restriction μˉ\bar{\mu} to the sub-σ\sigma-algebra B(X)\mathcal{B}(X) vanishes at ∅\emptyset and is countably additive, since a disjoint sequence in B(X)\mathcal{B}(X) is one in M(μ∗)\mathcal{M}(\mu^{*}); so μˉ\bar{\mu} is a Borel measure on XX. This proves (iii).

Step 9 (finiteness on compact sets and outer regularity). A compact K⊆XK\subseteq X is closed, hence Borel, and μˉ(K)=μ∗(K)<∞\bar{\mu}(K)=\mu^{*}(K)<\infty by (ii). For B∈B(X)B\in\mathcal{B}(X), the definition of μ∗\mu^{*} and (i) give

μˉ(B)=μ∗(B)=inf⁡{μ(V):V⊇B open}=inf⁡{μˉ(V):V⊇B open},\bar{\mu}(B)=\mu^{*}(B)=\inf\{\mu(V):V\supseteq B\text{ open}\}=\inf\{\bar{\mu}(V):V\supseteq B\text{ open}\},

since μˉ(V)=μ∗(V)=μ(V)\bar{\mu}(V)=\mu^{*}(V)=\mu(V) for open VV.

Step 10 (inner regularity of open sets). Let V⊆XV\subseteq X be open. Every compact K⊆VK\subseteq V has μˉ(K)≤μˉ(V)\bar{\mu}(K)\le\bar{\mu}(V). Conversely let tt be a real number with t<μˉ(V)=μ(V)t<\bar{\mu}(V)=\mu(V), and choose f≺Vf\prec V with Λf>t\Lambda f>t. Then K=supp⁡fK=\operatorname{supp}f is compact and K⊆VK\subseteq V, and f≺Wf\prec W for every open W⊇KW\supseteq K, so Λf≤μ(W)\Lambda f\le\mu(W) for all such WW; hence μˉ(K)=μ∗(K)≥Λf>t\bar{\mu}(K)=\mu^{*}(K)\ge\Lambda f>t. Therefore

μˉ(V)=sup⁡{μˉ(K):K⊆V compact},\bar{\mu}(V)=\sup\{\bar{\mu}(K):K\subseteq V\text{ compact}\},

and with Step 9 this shows that μˉ\bar{\mu} is a Radon measure, proving (iv).

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…