Positive and negative sets

In measure theory, given a measurable space (X,Σ) and a signed measure μ on it, a set A ∈ Σ is called a positive set for μ if every Σ-measurable subset of A has nonnegative measure; that is, for every E ⊆ A that satisfies E ∈ Σ, one has μ(E) ≥ 0.

Similarly, a set A ∈ Σ is called a negative set for μ if for every subset E of A satisfying E ∈ Σ, one has μ(E) ≤ 0.

Intuitively, a measurable set A is positive (resp. negative) for μ if μ is nonnegative (resp. nonpositive) everywhere on A. Of course, if μ is a nonnegative measure, every element of Σ is a positive set for μ.

In the light of Radon–Nikodym theorem, if ν is a σ-finite positive measure such that |μ| ≪ ν, a set A is a positive set for μ if and only if the Radon–Nikodym derivative dμ/dν is nonnegative ν-almost everywhere on A. Similarly, a negative set is a set where dμ/dν ≤ 0 ν-almost everywhere.

Properties

It follows from the definition that every measurable subset of a positive or negative set is also positive or negative. Also, the union of a sequence of positive or negative sets is also positive or negative; more formally, if (An)n is a sequence of positive sets, then

is also a positive set; the same is true if the word "positive" is replaced by "negative".

A set which is both positive and negative is a μ-null set, for if E is a measurable subset of a positive and negative set A, then both μ(E) ≥ 0 and μ(E) ≤ 0 must hold, and therefore, μ(E) = 0.

Hahn decomposition

The Hahn decomposition theorem states that for every measurable space (X,Σ) with a signed measure μ, there is a partition of X into a positive and a negative set; such a partition (P,N) is unique up to μ-null sets, and is called a Hahn decomposition of the signed measure μ.

Given a Hahn decomposition (P,N) of X, it is easy to show that A ⊆ X is a positive set if and only if A differs from a subset of P by a μ-null set; equivalently, if A−P is μ-null. The same is true for negative sets, if N is used instead of P.

gollark: Arch is somewhat annoying to set up, but it's probably paid back the time investment by teaching me Linux skills and not arbitrarily wasting my time for Microsoft.
gollark: You shouldn't have to work around it. OSes should let you actually use them and work for you, not for some company.
gollark: Well, it does. Because you have to put effort into that nonsense in the first place and it may break later.
gollark: Yes. You can in theory work around the nonsense it does, but all you can do is work around it.
gollark: The whole thing, though, is that it's an OS *you pay for* (well, the manufacturer of the computer, the cost is passed on) isn't controlled by you and is actively doing things you don't want it to.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.