Machine-translated by Google. Questions are authored in English.
Top

Discussion

Let \((\mathbf{R}, M, \mu)\) denote the real line with Lebesgue measure \(\mu\). Define \(\nu_{1}(A) = \int_{A} f(x)\,dx\) where :

\(f(x) = e^{-x}\) for \(x \gt 1\)
\(= 0\) otherwise

and \(\nu_{2}(A) = \int_{A} g(x)\,dx\) where

\(g(x) = e^{-1}\) for \(0 \le x \le 1\)
\(= 0\) otherwise

Then :

  • A.The measure \(\nu_{1}\) is absolutely continuous with respect to \(\nu_{2}\)
  • B.The measure \(\nu_{2}\) is absolutely continuous with respect to \(\nu_{1}\)
  • C.\(\nu_{1}\) and \(\nu_{2}\) are mutually singular measures
  • D.\(\mu\) is absolutely continuous with respect to both \(\nu_{1}\) and \(\nu_{2}\)

Answer: C

\(\nu_{1}\) and \(\nu_{2}\) are mutually singular.

\(\nu_{1}\) lives on \((1, \infty)\): it gives measure 0 to every subset of \((-\infty, 1]\). \(\nu_{2}\) lives on \([0, 1]\): it gives measure 0 to every subset of \((1, \infty)\). So the disjoint sets \((1, \infty)\) and \((-\infty, 1]\) separate them, which is the definition of mutual singularity.

Absolute continuity fails both ways: \(\nu_{2}((1, 2)) = 0\) but \(\nu_{1}((1, 2)) \gt 0\), and \(\nu_{1}([0, 1]) = 0\) but \(\nu_{2}([0, 1]) = e^{-1} \gt 0\). And Lebesgue measure gives positive mass to \((-2, -1)\), where both vanish, so it is not absolutely continuous with respect to either.

No comment is present. Be the first to comment.
Loading…

Post your comment

Please log in or register to post a comment.