6

I’m working on the following exercise in Klenke’s Probability Theory: A Comprehensive Course (Exercise 13.1.3), which asks us to prove the following generalization of Lusin’s Theorem:

Let $\Omega$ be a Polish space, let $\mu$ be a $\sigma$-finite measure on $(\Omega, \mathcal B(\Omega))$, and let $f : \Omega \to \mathbb R$ be a map. Show that the following are equivalent:

  1. There is a Borel measurable map $g : \Omega \to \mathbb R$ with $f = g$ almost everywhere.
  2. For any $\epsilon > 0$, there is a compact set $K_\epsilon$ with $\mu(\Omega \setminus K_\epsilon) < \epsilon$ such that the restricted function $f|_{K_\epsilon}$ is continuous.

As stated, this exercise is wrong when $\mu(\Omega) = \infty$: if $\Omega = \mathbb R$, no compact set has a complement with finite Lebesgue measure, so it should be a closed set $K_\epsilon$.

Furthermore, $\mu$ must be more than just $\sigma$-finite. Let $\Omega = \mathbb R$, and $\mu = \sum_{q \in \mathbb Q} \delta_q$ be the counting measure of the rationals. Then $\mu$ is certainly $\sigma$-finite, but if $f$ is a Borel-measurable map and if $K \subset \mathbb R$ is closed with $\mu(K^c) < \epsilon$ for $\epsilon < 1$, then we must have $\mu(K^c) = 0$, or $K \supset \mathbb Q$. But then since $K$ is closed, $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}= \mathbb R \subset K$, so $f$ must be continuous on $\mathbb R$ in order for the claim to hold. So we need more than $\sigma$-finite.

One way to edit the exercise is to instead assume $\mu$ is Radon and modify Statement 2 like so:

  1. There is a Borel measurable map $ g : \Omega \to \mathbb R$ with $f = g$ $\mu$-a.e.
  2. For any subset $A \subset \Omega$ with $\mu(A) < \infty$, and for any $\epsilon > 0$, there is a compact $K_\epsilon \subset A$ such that $f|_{K_\epsilon}$ is continuous.

These statements may be shown to be equivalent, since one can show Radon measures on Polish are $\sigma$-finite (see the discussion below).

But suppose we want to show the “original” Statement 2:

For any $\epsilon > 0$, there is a closed $K_\epsilon \subset \Omega$ with $\mu(K_\epsilon^c) < \epsilon$ such that the restricted function $f|_{K_\epsilon} : K_\epsilon \to \mathbb R$ is continuous.

What conditions must we impose on the Polish space $\Omega$ with infinite Radon measure $\mu$ in order to guarantee that this is true?

D Ford
  • 4,327
  • 1
    I think there's a mistake in Klenke, as your counterexample shows . You require at the least, $X$ to be a Radon measure on a finite measure space (could be Polish), $f: X \to Y$ where $Y$ is just a second countable space, then for all $\epsilon>0$ there is a closed set $C$ such that $\mu(C^c) < \epsilon$ and $f$ is continuous on $C$. This is Lusin's general theorem. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Feb 17 '21 at 11:11
  • 1
    There are extensions of Lusin's theorem to infinite measure spaces with certain additional conditions, though. For example, Lusin's theorem is true on $\mathbb R$ with Lebesgue measure if you replace "compact" with simply "closed". I'm wondering what assumptions need to be made on the space/measure in order for Lusin's theorem to hold; local compactness, for instance? But then is the result false in an infinite-dimensional Banach space? – D Ford Feb 18 '21 at 00:11
  • @TeresaLisbon On the other hand, we could have $\mu$ be a Radon measure and weaken Statement 2 above to say "For any $A \subset \Omega$ with $\mu(A) < \infty$, and for any $\epsilon > 0$, there is a compact $K_\epsilon \subset A$ for which $f|{K\epsilon}$ is continuous", and it's easy to show that Statement 1 implies Statement 2. Statement 2 could also be shown to imply Statement 1 if we can show that $\mu$ is $\sigma$-finite; are Radon measures on Polish spaces $\sigma$-finite? – D Ford Feb 18 '21 at 05:03
  • 1
    Radon measures on Polish spaces are indeed sigma-finite. In fact, Radon measures on any first countable space are sigma-finite. But in utmost generality this statement is not true, as you can see by trying the discrete topology somewhere. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Feb 18 '21 at 05:26
  • @TeresaLisbon do you have a reference or argument for this result? I've also asked this question on Radon measures on Polish spaces here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4030076/are-radon-measures-on-polish-spaces-sigma-finite – D Ford Feb 18 '21 at 05:46
  • 1
    I will see if I can come up with an argument myself, if I get an answer I'll post it there. Meanwhile, what can we do with this question, since you have found something off with Klenke's question? One things I can offer to do is look for if and only if statements for Lusin-type approximations of a function, in as much generality as possible. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Feb 18 '21 at 05:53
  • Well, when $\mu(\Omega) = \infty$, there are two formulations to the problem: the original one with $\sigma$-finite measures replaced with Radon measures, and the formulation in Edit 2. The latter can be addressed with showing Radon measures on Polish spaces are $\sigma$-finite. The former is only clear to me if $\Omega$ is $\sigma$-compact. If you can find a counterexample when $\Omega$ is not $\sigma$-compact, or show/give a reference that it can be made more general, then you've certainly earned the bounty. – D Ford Feb 18 '21 at 06:10
  • Thank you , will look to work in that direction. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Feb 18 '21 at 06:12
  • Actually even if the space is $\sigma$-compact, it's not clear; the problem then is that $f$ is continuous on an $F_\sigma$ set $K$ for which $\mu(K^c) < \epsilon$, but $F_\sigma$-sets need not be closed. – D Ford Feb 19 '21 at 02:04
  • 1
    But the answer in the thread you attached, now show addresses Edit 2, right? 1 implies 2 was already clear and 2 implies 1 now becomes clear. It is only Edit 1 which remains. I have commented below Alessandro's answer and attached the link to this question. Let's see where this goes? – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Feb 19 '21 at 04:41
  • I'm a little lost between the edits and the comments, what exactly is the question you're trying to answer now? – Alessandro Codenotti Feb 19 '21 at 09:25
  • @AlessandroCodenotti Following the discussion, the question is to prove the very first assertion (these two statements are equal) with $\mu$ being a Radon measure instead of a sigma-finite measure, and "closed set" instead of "compact set". Basically, OP tried to prove Klenke's exercise which is exactly what is given in the starting, but the exercise is wrong so we are trying to see what to change so we can get it right. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Feb 19 '21 at 09:29
  • @AlessandroCodenotti I’ve edited the question to reflect the most up-to-date work we’ve done on it and what our current objectives are (which I should have done a long time ago). Sorry for the confusion. – D Ford Feb 19 '21 at 18:25
  • @DFord Thanks, I'll think about it, looks like an interesting question. You have a typo at the end, it should say $\mu(K_\epsilon^c)<\epsilon$ instead of $<\infty$ – Alessandro Codenotti Feb 19 '21 at 18:35
  • Also at least in one direction you don't need any assumptions if I'm not wrong. If $f:X\to\Bbb R$ is Borel, $X$ is Polish and $\mu$ is Radon, then there is closed $K_\epsilon$ on which $f$ is continuous and $\mu(K_\epsilon^c)<\epsilon$. I can write down the argument carefully if this answers your question – Alessandro Codenotti Feb 19 '21 at 18:40
  • @AlessandroCodenotti that would be helpful, yes. I agree when $\mu(\Omega) < \infty$, but when $\mu(\Omega) = \infty$ that argument has thus far escaped me. Also, thank you for catching the typo. – D Ford Feb 19 '21 at 22:38
  • I think we should be careful. The following two statements are different: "$f|_K$ is continuous", "there is a continuous $g$ such that $f|_K=g|_K$". The latter is stronger. – user680089 Apr 03 '22 at 06:15
  • @user680089 are you sure it’s stronger? Obviously the second statement implies the first, but it seems that the first implies the second by the Tietze extension theorem. Anyways, in the typical phrasing of Lusin’s theorem, we usually say “$f|_K$ is continuous”, i.e. with respect to the subspace topology on $K$ (this obviously does not make $f$ continuous). – D Ford Apr 03 '22 at 14:36
  • Oh I was just considering more general version in which the Tietze extension does not work. But it was out of our interests. I'm sorry that I didn't read the question carefully. I thought the real importance was the existence of $g$, because Luzin's thm is usually applied in approximating indicator fcn by cts fcn. – user680089 Apr 03 '22 at 14:48

1 Answers1

5

All references I can find have extra assumptions, but I believe they are not needed. Hopefully my argument is correct, but there is a strictly positive probability that I overlooked some tricky details. I will prove the following, which is the most general version I could manage with a Radon measure.

Theorem: Let $X$ be a topological space, $\mu$ be a Radon measure on $X$ and $f\colon X\to Y$ a function, where $Y$ is a second countable topological space. The following are equivalent:

  1. There is a Borel function $g$ such that $f=g$ almost everywhere.
  2. For every $\epsilon>0$ there is a closed $F\subseteq X$ such that $f_{|F}$ is continuous and $\mu(X\setminus F)<\epsilon$.

Proof: $(1)\implies $(2) Fix $\epsilon>0$ and a countable basis $\{Y_n\}_{n\in\Bbb N}$ for $Y$ and, for each $n$, find a closed $F_n$ and an open $V_n$ such that $F_n\subseteq g^{-1}(Y_n)\setminus D\subseteq V_n$ and $\mu(V_n\setminus F_n)<\epsilon/2^{n+1}$, where $D=\{x\in X\mid f(x)\neq g(x)\}$. Let $U=\bigcup(V_n\setminus F_n)$ and note that $U$ is an open set with $\mu(U)<\epsilon$. Let $F=X\setminus U$, and note that $g^{-1}(Y_n)\cap F=V_n\cap F$, hence $g_{|F}$ is continuous, but $f=g$ on $F$ so $f_{|F}$ is also continuous.

$(2)\implies(1)$ For every $n\in\Bbb N$ we can find a closed set $F_n$ such that $f_{|F_n}$ is continuous and $\mu(X\setminus F_n)<1/n$. Let $F=\bigcup F_n$, let $Z=X\setminus F$ and fix a countable basis $\{Y_n\}_{n\in\Bbb N}$ for $Y$. We have $$f^{-1}(Y_m)=(f^{-1}(Y_m)\cap Z)\cup\bigcup_{n\in\Bbb N}f^{-1}(Y_m)\cap F_n,$$ where the set on the right is Borel, since $f_{|F_n}$ is continuous, while the set on the left is contained in the Borel null set $Z$, so if we define $g:X\to Y$ to agree with $f$ on $F$ and to be constant on $Z$ we have the function we were looking for.

As an aside note that to some authors a Radon measure means a measure which is tight rather than just inner regular, meaning that for all measurable $U$ and all $\epsilon>0$ there is a compact $K\subseteq U$ with $\mu(U\setminus K)<\epsilon$. Those authors usually state Lusin's theorem with compact $K_\epsilon$ and then remark that if the measure is Borel regular instead of Radon then the theorem still holds by replacing "compact" with closed", maybe the book you're following is using this convention?

  • Very nice! I wasn’t even thinking of using the topology of the codomain of $f$, but this does exactly what we need. One comment: In your argument that (1) $\Rightarrow$ (2), I think you need $\left(g^{-1}(Y_n) \setminus D \right) \cap F = V_n \cap F$. – D Ford Feb 19 '21 at 23:57
  • But I think you’ve also assumed that $\mu$ is outer regular; Radon measures (as the way Klenke defines them) need only be inner regular and Borel. You need outer regularity as an additional assumption in order for this argument to work. – D Ford Feb 20 '21 at 00:01
  • Does inner regular mean that Borel sets can be approximated by compact sets, or that only open sets can to Klenke? Because inner regular for all Borel sets implies outer regular as well (I wish authors could agree on a definition of Radon measure...). You don't need $g^{-1}(Y_n)\setminus D$, because $D\cap F$ is empty already! – Alessandro Codenotti Feb 20 '21 at 00:06
  • Klenke defines inner and outer regularity of a measure $\mu$ on a topological space $\Omega$ with Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal B$ like so: $$ \mu \textrm{ is Borel if } \forall x \in \Omega: \quad \exists \textrm{ open } U \ni x \quad \textrm{ s.t. } \quad \mu(U) < \infty; $$ $$ \mu \textrm{ is inner regular if } \forall A \in \mathcal B : \quad \mu(A) = \inf\left{\mu(K) : K \subset A \textrm{ is compact}\right}; $$ $$ \mu \textrm{ is outer regular if } \forall A \in \mathcal B : \quad \mu(A) = \sup\left{ \mu(U) : U \supset A \textrm{ is open } \right} $$ – D Ford Feb 20 '21 at 01:53
  • If inner regularity on Borel subsets implies outer regularity, Klenke doesn’t prove this. Does this result follow from the definitions I’ve just described? (Also thank you for clarifying the $g^{-1}(Y_n) \setminus D$ issue) – D Ford Feb 20 '21 at 01:57
  • Excuse me, there are typos in my above comment. In particular $\sup$ and $\inf$ should be reversed. The correct definitions are: $$ \mu \textrm{ is inner regular if } \forall A \in \mathcal B: \quad \mu(A) = \sup\left{ \mu(K) : K \subset A \textrm{ is compact}\right}; $$ $$ \mu \textrm{ is outer regular if } \forall A \in \mathcal B : \quad \mu(A) = \inf \left{ \mu(U) : U \supset A \textrm{ is open}\right} $$ – D Ford Feb 20 '21 at 07:13
  • @Dford to approximate a Borel $A$ from the outside with open sets use inner regularity to approximate $X\setminus A$ from the inside with compact sets and then look at the component of their complement containing $A$ – Alessandro Codenotti Feb 20 '21 at 08:14
  • @AlsesandroCodenotti that argument only works if $\mu(X) < \infty$. If $\mu(A) < \infty$ but $\mu(X \setminus A) = \infty$, no compact set $K \subset X \setminus A$ satisfies $\mu((X\setminus A) \setminus K) < \epsilon$, so it’s not so easy to construct an open set $U \supset A$ with $\mu(U\setminus A) < \epsilon$. Also, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_measure#Definition for specific counter examples. – D Ford Feb 20 '21 at 18:48
  • @DFord fair point. But then the definition of Radon measure used by Klenke is nonstandard, since with his definition the last example in the "Inner regular measures that are not outer regular" is Radon, while with the definitions that virtually anybody else uses it wouldn't be. I wrote my answer assuming the common definitions – Alessandro Codenotti Feb 20 '21 at 19:28
  • Is the “standard” definition of a Radon measure a Borel measure that is both inner and outer regular? There seems to be some disagreement on that point (https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Radon_measure) – D Ford Feb 20 '21 at 23:04