Could the definition of singular measures be weakened?

53 Views Asked by At

The question:

The standard definition of singular measures is given on Wikipedia:

Two positive measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ defined on a measurable space $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ are called singular if there exist two disjoint sets $A,B\in\Sigma$ whose union is $\Omega$ such that $\mu$ is zero on all measurable subsets of $B$ while $\nu$ is zero on all measurable subsets of $A$.

I was wondering what if we weaken the definition to not require $A$ and $B$ to be measurable sets; the rest of the definition is unchanged. Is it then equivalent to the original definition?


"Motivation"

I was trying to do this because I misread the original definition and then I was thinking how nice would it be if $A$ and $B$ were measurable... Then I read the definition again, but the wondering is still here.

I tried some simple tricks like picking a set (call it $X$) at a time which is zero in one measure and non-zero in the other and then define $A$ and $B$ through transfinite recursion (unioning all the sets I picked so far), but I wasn't able to do that either. There is an equivalent definition of absolutely continuous measures, defined in $\delta-\varepsilon$ notation which seems to yield something like "I can pick such $X$ iff the two measures are not absolutely continuous one w.r.t. to the other". But I get lost here... It is as far as my intuition goes. However, I still doubt it could be done that way.

Is anything known about this weakened definition?


Note: The opposite question was asked here and the answer to this question given by Eric Wofsey answers exactly that other question.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

1
On BEST ANSWER

This weakened definition is much weaker than the usual definition, to the point of being basically useless. For instance, it can be shown that there exists a subset $A\subset\mathbb{R}$ (e.g., a Bernstein set) such that both $A$ and its complement intersect every set of positive Lebesgue measure. That is, every Lebesgue measurable subset of either $A$ or its complement has measure $0$. This means that by your weakened definition, Lebesgue measure is singular with respect to itself!