Variant of Sierpiński's result on non-atomic measures












1












$begingroup$


Sierpiński's theorem states that nonatomic probability measures take a continuum of values. What if I assume that $mu$ is a countably additive probability measure on $(X,2^X)$ and further that $mu({x})=0$ for all $xin X$ (a weaker assumption than non-atomicity). Does it follow that $mu$ takes on every value in $[0,1]$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
    $endgroup$
    – Will Brian
    5 hours ago
















1












$begingroup$


Sierpiński's theorem states that nonatomic probability measures take a continuum of values. What if I assume that $mu$ is a countably additive probability measure on $(X,2^X)$ and further that $mu({x})=0$ for all $xin X$ (a weaker assumption than non-atomicity). Does it follow that $mu$ takes on every value in $[0,1]$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
    $endgroup$
    – Will Brian
    5 hours ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Sierpiński's theorem states that nonatomic probability measures take a continuum of values. What if I assume that $mu$ is a countably additive probability measure on $(X,2^X)$ and further that $mu({x})=0$ for all $xin X$ (a weaker assumption than non-atomicity). Does it follow that $mu$ takes on every value in $[0,1]$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Sierpiński's theorem states that nonatomic probability measures take a continuum of values. What if I assume that $mu$ is a countably additive probability measure on $(X,2^X)$ and further that $mu({x})=0$ for all $xin X$ (a weaker assumption than non-atomicity). Does it follow that $mu$ takes on every value in $[0,1]$?







set-theory measure-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 5 hours ago









Aryeh KontorovichAryeh Kontorovich

2,4981527




2,4981527








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
    $endgroup$
    – Will Brian
    5 hours ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
    $endgroup$
    – Will Brian
    5 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
$endgroup$
– Will Brian
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus a partial answer to your question is "assuming large cardinals, no it doesn't follow." I'm posting this as a comment rather than an answer in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can find a counterexample without using large cardinals.
$endgroup$
– Will Brian
5 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).



Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.



Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f321112%2fvariant-of-sierpi%25c5%2584skis-result-on-non-atomic-measures%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









    7












    $begingroup$

    If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).



    Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.



    Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      7












      $begingroup$

      If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).



      Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.



      Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        7












        7








        7





        $begingroup$

        If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).



        Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.



        Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        If $|X|$ is a measurable cardinal, then there is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter $mathcal U$ on $X$. You may define a countably additive probability measure $mu$ on $(X,2^X)$ by setting $mu(Y) = 1$ if $Y in mathcal U$ and $mu(Y) = 0$ if $Y notin mathcal U$. This measure takes only two values (hence is atomic) and assigns measure $0$ to every singleton. Thus the answer to your question is "no it does not follow" (assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal).



        Furthermore, we can show that the measurable cardinal is necessary, in the sense that if there is an example $mu$ of an atomic measure having the properties you describe, then there is a measurable cardinal. To see this, first note that any such measure $mu$ must be atomic, by the theorem you quoted in your post. Fix $Y subseteq X$ such that $mu(Y) = c > 0$ and if $Z subseteq Y$ then either $mu(Z) = 0$ or $mu(Z) = c$. (This is what it means for a measure to be atomic.) Letting $mathcal U = {Z subseteq Y : mu(Z) = c}$, it is not difficult to show that $mathcal U$ is a $sigma$-complete ultrafilter on $Y$. This shows that $|Y|$ is $geq$ the least measurable cardinal.



        Thus a fuller answer to your question is "no it doesn't follow . . . or if it does, then the existence of measurable cardinals is inconsistent."







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 3 hours ago

























        answered 4 hours ago









        Will BrianWill Brian

        8,63923753




        8,63923753






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f321112%2fvariant-of-sierpi%25c5%2584skis-result-on-non-atomic-measures%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Knooppunt Holsloot

            Altaar (religie)

            Gregoriusmis