12
$\begingroup$

I am trying to figure out the following problem in measure theory and am stuck. It seems like it should be very easy, so I must be missing something.

Let $g: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a mapping of $\mathbb{R}$ onto $\mathbb{R}$ for which there is a constant $c > 0$ for which

$$ |g(u) - g(v)| \geq c \cdot |u-v| \text{ for all } u, v \in \mathbb{R}. $$

(Note to avoid confusion: this function is NOT Lipschitz and not supposed to be.)

Show that if $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is Lebesgue measurable, then so is the composition $f \circ g$.

I see that we need to show that $g$ maps measurable sets to measurable sets. I know how to show $g$ is injective and that bounded sets are mapped to and from bounded sets... but I'm not sure where to go from there.

I'd appreciate a nudge in the right direction. Please do not give away the whole problem, if possible.

  • 2
    Are you sure you don't want Lipschitz continuity, that is $|g(u) - g(v)| \leq c|u-v|$? Moreover, you don't want to check that $g$ *maps* measurable sets to measurable sets, you want that *preimages* of measurable sets are measurable. For this (assuming my guess in the first sentence is right), recall that every measurable set is a union of a Borel set and a null set, so by continuity of $g$ it suffices to show that the pre-image of a null-set is a null-set.2011-04-19
  • 0
    Yes, I am sure it is not Lipschitz. This is written correctly... it's number 27 in chapter 20 in Royden's 4th edition book. We proved this for Lipschitz continuous functions a long time ago. Also, you can show that if $g$ has the above condition, it is one to one, so mapping measurable sets to and from measurable sets are the same thing.2011-04-19
  • 0
    If it helps at all, this problem is in the section that goes over Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ and the composition rule for integration when you compose an integrable function with an invertible linear map.2011-04-19
  • 0
    Ah, ok. I should have paid closer attention to what you wrote afterwards. Sorry for the noise. So if you look at images of null sets under $g$, they will most certainly be null, I guess, but what I don't see is why the image of a Borel set is still measurable (if we assume $g$ to be Borel, I can prove this, but this is probably an overkill argument).2011-04-19
  • 0
    Yes, this problem seems kind of out of nowhere and unrelated to what we are doing... but usually that just means I'm not interpreting it in terms of the stuff we're doing right now. I think the onto assumption is crucial. I have already used it to show bounded sets go to bounded sets... but I'm not sure where to go after that.2011-04-19
  • 1
    My measure theory is rusty, but since $g$ is 1-1, doesn't it follow that $g^{-1}$ is Lipscitz? Then you should get it from there...2011-04-19
  • 4
    Ah, I overlooked the *onto* part. So $g$ has a Lipschitz continuous inverse, but that means that $g$ maps Borels to Borels and nulls to nulls (hope I didn't give too much away like that).2011-04-19
  • 0
    Hahaha.. I can't believe I didn't see that. It's okay! That is why I said "if possible." Thank you very much!2011-04-19
  • 0
    Well, we sort of nudged each other through this argument, didn't we? Cool problem, didn't know that!2011-04-19
  • 0
    Definitely! I am a new user, so I'm not sure how to mark this question answered. Do you have to post an official answer or something?2011-04-19
  • 2
    Well, I suggest that you type up a short account of the argument and then accept it (I need to go to bed now). By the way: add a twitter-like `@user` if you want to notify someone, otherwise they don't see that you've answered them.2011-04-19
  • 0
    Okay, I will tomorrow. I joined this website today, and it won't let me answer my own questions, yet.2011-04-19
  • 3
    @Bill: what say you write up that short account of the argument that was hashed out between you and @Theo?2011-07-30
  • 2
    @Willie: done, after a *long* time. Sorry for the delay...2011-12-25

1 Answers 1