Variant of Sierpiński's result on non-atomic measures
$begingroup$
Sierpiński's theorem states that nonatomic probability measures take a continuum of values. What if I assume that $mu$ is a countably additive probability measure on $(X,2^X)$ and further that $mu({x})=0$ for all $xin X$ (a weaker assumption than non-atomicity). Does it follow that $mu$ takes on every value in $[0,1]$?
set-theory measure-theory
asked 5 hours ago
Aryeh KontorovichAryeh Kontorovich
2,4981527
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sierpiński's theorem states that nonatomic probability measures take a continuum of values. What if I assume that $mu$ is a countably additive probability measure on $(X,2^X)$ and further that $mu({x})=0$ for all $xin X$ (a weaker assumption than non-atomicity). Does it follow that $mu$ takes on every value in $[0,1]$?
set-theory measure-theory
asked 5 hours ago
Aryeh KontorovichAryeh Kontorovich
2,4981527
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
$endgroup$
– Will Brian
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sierpiński's theorem states that nonatomic probability measures take a continuum of values. What if I assume that $mu$ is a countably additive probability measure on $(X,2^X)$ and further that $mu({x})=0$ for all $xin X$ (a weaker assumption than non-atomicity). Does it follow that $mu$ takes on every value in $[0,1]$?
set-theory measure-theory
asked 5 hours ago
Aryeh KontorovichAryeh Kontorovich
2,4981527
$endgroup$
Sierpiński's theorem states that nonatomic probability measures take a continuum of values. What if I assume that $mu$ is a countably additive probability measure on $(X,2^X)$ and further that $mu({x})=0$ for all $xin X$ (a weaker assumption than non-atomicity). Does it follow that $mu$ takes on every value in $[0,1]$?
set-theory measure-theory
set-theory measure-theory
asked 5 hours ago
Aryeh KontorovichAryeh Kontorovich
2,4981527
asked 5 hours ago
Aryeh KontorovichAryeh Kontorovich
2,4981527
asked 5 hours ago
Aryeh KontorovichAryeh Kontorovich
2,4981527
asked 5 hours ago
Aryeh KontorovichAryeh Kontorovich
2,4981527
asked 5 hours ago
Aryeh KontorovichAryeh Kontorovich
2,4981527
2,4981527
2
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
$endgroup$
– Will Brian
5 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
$endgroup$
– Will Brian
5 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
$endgroup$
– Will Brian
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
$endgroup$
– Will Brian
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).
Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.
Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."
answered 5 hours ago
Will BrianWill Brian
8,63923753
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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: "504"
};
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');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f321112%2fvariant-of-sierpi%25c5%2584skis-result-on-non-atomic-measures%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
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).
Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.
Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."
answered 5 hours ago
Will BrianWill Brian
8,63923753
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).
Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.
Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."
answered 5 hours ago
Will BrianWill Brian
8,63923753
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).
Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.
Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."
answered 5 hours ago
Will BrianWill Brian
8,63923753
$endgroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).
Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.
Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."
answered 5 hours ago
Will BrianWill Brian
8,63923753
edited 3 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Will BrianWill Brian
8,63923753
answered 5 hours ago
Will BrianWill Brian
8,63923753
answered 5 hours ago
Will BrianWill Brian
8,63923753
8,63923753
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f321112%2fvariant-of-sierpi%25c5%2584skis-result-on-non-atomic-measures%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');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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
2
$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
$endgroup$
– Will Brian
5 hours ago