5
$\begingroup$

It seems to me rather ambiguous as it gives the impression of invariance by translation. Could it be an archaic notation that comes from Lebesgue measure (for which of course, it makes sense) ?

It seems to me that $d\mu(t)$ is more precautious with general measures, because one can directly see that it depends on the point $t$.

  • 0
    It reminds me [this comment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxI3BemTjfk#t=09m30s) by J.-P. Serre… – 2017-02-07
  • 0
    Explanation given [there](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxI3BemTjfk#t=13m29s), at 13min29sec. – 2017-02-07
  • 0
    Not the most convincing insight from the many ones the Grand Homme gave us, one must admit... – 2017-02-07
  • 0
    Yes $d \mu$ or $d\mu(t)$ is much better to me, because it is compatible with $x = f(t),dx = f'(t)dt$ when $\mu([a,b]) = \int_a^b f(t)dt$ for some $f \in L^1_{loc}$ – 2017-02-07
  • 0
    @Did Who is the "Grand Homme"? – 2017-02-07
  • 0
    @user144921 J.-P. Serre, inferred from his reputation and the preceding comments. (Grand Homme $\leftrightarrow$ Great Man) – 2017-02-07

0 Answers 0