Fubini without CH
In Real and Complex Analysis, Rudin gives an example (due to Sierpinski) of a function $f:[0,1]^2to[0,1]$ separately Lebesgue-measurable in each argument, such that
$$
int_0^1 dxint_0^1f(x,y),dy
neq
int_0^1 dyint_0^1f(x,y),dx
$$
(all integrals are w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$). The construction of $f$ requires the Continuum Hypothesis, and my question is: What happens if we negate CH? Does it then follow that all functions $f:[0,1]^2to[0,1]$ separately Lebesgue-measurable in each argument satisfy the conclusion of Fubini's theorem?
set-theory lo.logic measure-theory integration
edited Jan 2 at 0:43
YCor
27.1k380132
asked Jan 2 at 0:20
Aryeh Kontorovich
2,4081426
add a comment |
In Real and Complex Analysis, Rudin gives an example (due to Sierpinski) of a function $f:[0,1]^2to[0,1]$ separately Lebesgue-measurable in each argument, such that
$$
int_0^1 dxint_0^1f(x,y),dy
neq
int_0^1 dyint_0^1f(x,y),dx
$$
(all integrals are w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$). The construction of $f$ requires the Continuum Hypothesis, and my question is: What happens if we negate CH? Does it then follow that all functions $f:[0,1]^2to[0,1]$ separately Lebesgue-measurable in each argument satisfy the conclusion of Fubini's theorem?
set-theory lo.logic measure-theory integration
edited Jan 2 at 0:43
YCor
27.1k380132
asked Jan 2 at 0:20
Aryeh Kontorovich
2,4081426
4
This paper by Friedman appears to show that a slightly weaker statement is consistent with ZFC: if both iterated integrals make sense then they are equal.
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 2 at 0:32
1
Does this thing have anything to do with this?: jdh.hamkins.org/…
– Michael Hardy
Jan 2 at 0:40
4
Martins axiom (consistent with not-CH) will be enough to do Sierpinski's example.
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 2 at 1:45
add a comment |
In Real and Complex Analysis, Rudin gives an example (due to Sierpinski) of a function $f:[0,1]^2to[0,1]$ separately Lebesgue-measurable in each argument, such that
$$
int_0^1 dxint_0^1f(x,y),dy
neq
int_0^1 dyint_0^1f(x,y),dx
$$
(all integrals are w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$). The construction of $f$ requires the Continuum Hypothesis, and my question is: What happens if we negate CH? Does it then follow that all functions $f:[0,1]^2to[0,1]$ separately Lebesgue-measurable in each argument satisfy the conclusion of Fubini's theorem?
set-theory lo.logic measure-theory integration
edited Jan 2 at 0:43
YCor
27.1k380132
asked Jan 2 at 0:20
Aryeh Kontorovich
2,4081426
In Real and Complex Analysis, Rudin gives an example (due to Sierpinski) of a function $f:[0,1]^2to[0,1]$ separately Lebesgue-measurable in each argument, such that
$$
int_0^1 dxint_0^1f(x,y),dy
neq
int_0^1 dyint_0^1f(x,y),dx
$$
(all integrals are w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$). The construction of $f$ requires the Continuum Hypothesis, and my question is: What happens if we negate CH? Does it then follow that all functions $f:[0,1]^2to[0,1]$ separately Lebesgue-measurable in each argument satisfy the conclusion of Fubini's theorem?
set-theory lo.logic measure-theory integration
set-theory lo.logic measure-theory integration
edited Jan 2 at 0:43
YCor
27.1k380132
asked Jan 2 at 0:20
Aryeh Kontorovich
2,4081426
edited Jan 2 at 0:43
YCor
27.1k380132
asked Jan 2 at 0:20
Aryeh Kontorovich
2,4081426
edited Jan 2 at 0:43
YCor
27.1k380132
edited Jan 2 at 0:43
YCor
27.1k380132
edited Jan 2 at 0:43
YCor
27.1k380132
27.1k380132
asked Jan 2 at 0:20
Aryeh Kontorovich
2,4081426
asked Jan 2 at 0:20
Aryeh Kontorovich
2,4081426
asked Jan 2 at 0:20
Aryeh Kontorovich
2,4081426
2,4081426
4
This paper by Friedman appears to show that a slightly weaker statement is consistent with ZFC: if both iterated integrals make sense then they are equal.
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 2 at 0:32
1
Does this thing have anything to do with this?: jdh.hamkins.org/…
– Michael Hardy
Jan 2 at 0:40
4
Martins axiom (consistent with not-CH) will be enough to do Sierpinski's example.
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 2 at 1:45
add a comment |
4
This paper by Friedman appears to show that a slightly weaker statement is consistent with ZFC: if both iterated integrals make sense then they are equal.
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 2 at 0:32
1
Does this thing have anything to do with this?: jdh.hamkins.org/…
– Michael Hardy
Jan 2 at 0:40
4
Martins axiom (consistent with not-CH) will be enough to do Sierpinski's example.
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 2 at 1:45
4
4
This paper by Friedman appears to show that a slightly weaker statement is consistent with ZFC: if both iterated integrals make sense then they are equal.
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 2 at 0:32
This paper by Friedman appears to show that a slightly weaker statement is consistent with ZFC: if both iterated integrals make sense then they are equal.
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 2 at 0:32
1
1
Does this thing have anything to do with this?: jdh.hamkins.org/…
– Michael Hardy
Jan 2 at 0:40
Does this thing have anything to do with this?: jdh.hamkins.org/…
– Michael Hardy
Jan 2 at 0:40
4
4
Martins axiom (consistent with not-CH) will be enough to do Sierpinski's example.
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 2 at 1:45
Martins axiom (consistent with not-CH) will be enough to do Sierpinski's example.
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 2 at 1:45
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
See Cardinal Conditions for Strong Fubini Theorems,
Joseph Shipman
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society
Vol. 321, No. 2 (Oct., 1990), pp. 465-481.
In general: Let $(X,A,μ)$ and $(Y,B,ν)$ be $σ$-finite measure spaces. The strong Fubini axiom ($SFA^∗$) asserts that whenever the iterated integrals for some $f:X×Y→[0,∞)$ are defined then they must be equal. It is known that for $X=Y=R$ and $μ=ν=$ Lebesgue measure, $CH$ implies not-$SFA^∗$ and the above paper shows that non(Lebesgue null)$<$Cov(Lebesgue null) implies $SFA^∗$.
You may also look at Strong Fubini axioms from measure extension axioms for extensions
answered 2 days ago
Mohammad Golshani
19k267149
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');
});
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%2f319895%2ffubini-without-ch%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
See Cardinal Conditions for Strong Fubini Theorems,
Joseph Shipman
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society
Vol. 321, No. 2 (Oct., 1990), pp. 465-481.
In general: Let $(X,A,μ)$ and $(Y,B,ν)$ be $σ$-finite measure spaces. The strong Fubini axiom ($SFA^∗$) asserts that whenever the iterated integrals for some $f:X×Y→[0,∞)$ are defined then they must be equal. It is known that for $X=Y=R$ and $μ=ν=$ Lebesgue measure, $CH$ implies not-$SFA^∗$ and the above paper shows that non(Lebesgue null)$<$Cov(Lebesgue null) implies $SFA^∗$.
You may also look at Strong Fubini axioms from measure extension axioms for extensions
answered 2 days ago
Mohammad Golshani
19k267149
add a comment |
See Cardinal Conditions for Strong Fubini Theorems,
Joseph Shipman
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society
Vol. 321, No. 2 (Oct., 1990), pp. 465-481.
In general: Let $(X,A,μ)$ and $(Y,B,ν)$ be $σ$-finite measure spaces. The strong Fubini axiom ($SFA^∗$) asserts that whenever the iterated integrals for some $f:X×Y→[0,∞)$ are defined then they must be equal. It is known that for $X=Y=R$ and $μ=ν=$ Lebesgue measure, $CH$ implies not-$SFA^∗$ and the above paper shows that non(Lebesgue null)$<$Cov(Lebesgue null) implies $SFA^∗$.
You may also look at Strong Fubini axioms from measure extension axioms for extensions
answered 2 days ago
Mohammad Golshani
19k267149
add a comment |
See Cardinal Conditions for Strong Fubini Theorems,
Joseph Shipman
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society
Vol. 321, No. 2 (Oct., 1990), pp. 465-481.
In general: Let $(X,A,μ)$ and $(Y,B,ν)$ be $σ$-finite measure spaces. The strong Fubini axiom ($SFA^∗$) asserts that whenever the iterated integrals for some $f:X×Y→[0,∞)$ are defined then they must be equal. It is known that for $X=Y=R$ and $μ=ν=$ Lebesgue measure, $CH$ implies not-$SFA^∗$ and the above paper shows that non(Lebesgue null)$<$Cov(Lebesgue null) implies $SFA^∗$.
You may also look at Strong Fubini axioms from measure extension axioms for extensions
answered 2 days ago
Mohammad Golshani
19k267149
See Cardinal Conditions for Strong Fubini Theorems,
Joseph Shipman
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society
Vol. 321, No. 2 (Oct., 1990), pp. 465-481.
In general: Let $(X,A,μ)$ and $(Y,B,ν)$ be $σ$-finite measure spaces. The strong Fubini axiom ($SFA^∗$) asserts that whenever the iterated integrals for some $f:X×Y→[0,∞)$ are defined then they must be equal. It is known that for $X=Y=R$ and $μ=ν=$ Lebesgue measure, $CH$ implies not-$SFA^∗$ and the above paper shows that non(Lebesgue null)$<$Cov(Lebesgue null) implies $SFA^∗$.
You may also look at Strong Fubini axioms from measure extension axioms for extensions
answered 2 days ago
Mohammad Golshani
19k267149
answered 2 days ago
Mohammad Golshani
19k267149
answered 2 days ago
Mohammad Golshani
19k267149
answered 2 days ago
Mohammad Golshani
19k267149
19k267149
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
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%2f319895%2ffubini-without-ch%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');
});
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');
});
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');
});
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
4
This paper by Friedman appears to show that a slightly weaker statement is consistent with ZFC: if both iterated integrals make sense then they are equal.
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 2 at 0:32
1
Does this thing have anything to do with this?: jdh.hamkins.org/…
– Michael Hardy
Jan 2 at 0:40
4
Martins axiom (consistent with not-CH) will be enough to do Sierpinski's example.
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 2 at 1:45