3
$\begingroup$

This question comes from section 4.4, page 17, of this paper.

Let $\mu$ be a Borel measure on Cantor space, $2^\mathbb{N}$. The authors say that

If the measure is atomless, via the binary expansion of reals we can view it also as a Borel measure on $[0,1]$.

Is it necessary that $\mu$ be atomless?

  • 1
    I don't think so. What about a point-mass on $2^{\mathbb{N}}$ (leading to a point-mass on $\mathbb{R}$)?2012-02-25

1 Answers 1

6

The existence of the measure on $[0,1]$ has nothing to do with atoms, per se.

Let $\varphi: 2^\mathbb{N}\to [0,1]$ be defined by $\varphi(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty {x(n)/2^n}$. This map is Borel measurable, and so for any Borel measure $\mu$ on $2^\mathbb{N}$, the image measure $\mu\circ\varphi^{-1}$ is a Borel measure on $[0,1]$.

The authors mention this condition, I think, so they can go back and forth between the two viewpoints. That is, for atomless measures the map $\mu\mapsto \mu\circ\varphi^{-1}$ is one-to-one.

  • 0
    @Quinn Yes, the measure $\mu$ should not charge any sequence with only finitely many 0s or 1s. Under the map $\varphi$ these correspond to dyadic rationals.2012-02-25