Mixing
measure preserving transformation inequality
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $(lambda,Lambda)$ denote the Lebesgue measure space on $(0,infty)$. Suppose $E$ and $F$ are Lebesgue-measurable subsets of $(0,infty)$. A map $m:Fto E$ is called measure-presering whenever $lambda(m^{-1}(A))=lambda(A)$ for each measurable subset $A$ of $E$. It is called order-preserving if $aleq b$ in $F$ implies $m(a)leq m(b)$ in $E$. Denote by $mathbb{MO}(F,E)$ the set of all bijective maps $m:Fto E$ such that $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both order-preserving and measure-preserving.
Fix $rin(0,infty)$. Let $W:(0,infty)to(0,infty)$ be a positive decreasing function and $f:(0,infty)to[0,infty)$ be a nonnegative function increasing on $(0,r]$ and zero on $(r,infty)$.
Conjecture. Suppose $Esubset(0,r]$ with $b=lambda(E)=lambda(F)leq r$, and $minmathbb{MO}(F,E)$. Then
$$int_0^inftylambda{xin(0,b]:f(t+r-b)W(t)>x};dtgeqint_0^inftylambda{xin F:(fcirc m)(t)W(t)>x};dt.$$
Or, equivalently,
$$int_0^bf(t+r-b)W(t);dtgeqint_F(fcirc m)(t)W(t);dt.$$
This seems intuitively obvious, and would be easy to prove if we were working in $mathbb{N}$ endowed with the counting measure instead of $(0,infty)$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure. Unfortunately, Lebesgue-measurable sets can be very ugly indeed, and so that makes working with them difficult sometimes.
The following may help.
Fact. There exists a surjection $tau:Eto[0,b]$ which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving. (However, it is not necessarily injective, and hence need not be invertible.) A similar map exists for $F$.
real-analysis measure-theory
asked yesterday
Ben W
1,079510
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $(lambda,Lambda)$ denote the Lebesgue measure space on $(0,infty)$. Suppose $E$ and $F$ are Lebesgue-measurable subsets of $(0,infty)$. A map $m:Fto E$ is called measure-presering whenever $lambda(m^{-1}(A))=lambda(A)$ for each measurable subset $A$ of $E$. It is called order-preserving if $aleq b$ in $F$ implies $m(a)leq m(b)$ in $E$. Denote by $mathbb{MO}(F,E)$ the set of all bijective maps $m:Fto E$ such that $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both order-preserving and measure-preserving.
Fix $rin(0,infty)$. Let $W:(0,infty)to(0,infty)$ be a positive decreasing function and $f:(0,infty)to[0,infty)$ be a nonnegative function increasing on $(0,r]$ and zero on $(r,infty)$.
Conjecture. Suppose $Esubset(0,r]$ with $b=lambda(E)=lambda(F)leq r$, and $minmathbb{MO}(F,E)$. Then
$$int_0^inftylambda{xin(0,b]:f(t+r-b)W(t)>x};dtgeqint_0^inftylambda{xin F:(fcirc m)(t)W(t)>x};dt.$$
Or, equivalently,
$$int_0^bf(t+r-b)W(t);dtgeqint_F(fcirc m)(t)W(t);dt.$$
This seems intuitively obvious, and would be easy to prove if we were working in $mathbb{N}$ endowed with the counting measure instead of $(0,infty)$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure. Unfortunately, Lebesgue-measurable sets can be very ugly indeed, and so that makes working with them difficult sometimes.
The following may help.
Fact. There exists a surjection $tau:Eto[0,b]$ which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving. (However, it is not necessarily injective, and hence need not be invertible.) A similar map exists for $F$.
real-analysis measure-theory
asked yesterday
Ben W
1,079510
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $(lambda,Lambda)$ denote the Lebesgue measure space on $(0,infty)$. Suppose $E$ and $F$ are Lebesgue-measurable subsets of $(0,infty)$. A map $m:Fto E$ is called measure-presering whenever $lambda(m^{-1}(A))=lambda(A)$ for each measurable subset $A$ of $E$. It is called order-preserving if $aleq b$ in $F$ implies $m(a)leq m(b)$ in $E$. Denote by $mathbb{MO}(F,E)$ the set of all bijective maps $m:Fto E$ such that $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both order-preserving and measure-preserving.
Fix $rin(0,infty)$. Let $W:(0,infty)to(0,infty)$ be a positive decreasing function and $f:(0,infty)to[0,infty)$ be a nonnegative function increasing on $(0,r]$ and zero on $(r,infty)$.
Conjecture. Suppose $Esubset(0,r]$ with $b=lambda(E)=lambda(F)leq r$, and $minmathbb{MO}(F,E)$. Then
$$int_0^inftylambda{xin(0,b]:f(t+r-b)W(t)>x};dtgeqint_0^inftylambda{xin F:(fcirc m)(t)W(t)>x};dt.$$
Or, equivalently,
$$int_0^bf(t+r-b)W(t);dtgeqint_F(fcirc m)(t)W(t);dt.$$
This seems intuitively obvious, and would be easy to prove if we were working in $mathbb{N}$ endowed with the counting measure instead of $(0,infty)$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure. Unfortunately, Lebesgue-measurable sets can be very ugly indeed, and so that makes working with them difficult sometimes.
The following may help.
Fact. There exists a surjection $tau:Eto[0,b]$ which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving. (However, it is not necessarily injective, and hence need not be invertible.) A similar map exists for $F$.
real-analysis measure-theory
asked yesterday
Ben W
1,079510
Let $(lambda,Lambda)$ denote the Lebesgue measure space on $(0,infty)$. Suppose $E$ and $F$ are Lebesgue-measurable subsets of $(0,infty)$. A map $m:Fto E$ is called measure-presering whenever $lambda(m^{-1}(A))=lambda(A)$ for each measurable subset $A$ of $E$. It is called order-preserving if $aleq b$ in $F$ implies $m(a)leq m(b)$ in $E$. Denote by $mathbb{MO}(F,E)$ the set of all bijective maps $m:Fto E$ such that $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both order-preserving and measure-preserving.
Fix $rin(0,infty)$. Let $W:(0,infty)to(0,infty)$ be a positive decreasing function and $f:(0,infty)to[0,infty)$ be a nonnegative function increasing on $(0,r]$ and zero on $(r,infty)$.
Conjecture. Suppose $Esubset(0,r]$ with $b=lambda(E)=lambda(F)leq r$, and $minmathbb{MO}(F,E)$. Then
$$int_0^inftylambda{xin(0,b]:f(t+r-b)W(t)>x};dtgeqint_0^inftylambda{xin F:(fcirc m)(t)W(t)>x};dt.$$
Or, equivalently,
$$int_0^bf(t+r-b)W(t);dtgeqint_F(fcirc m)(t)W(t);dt.$$
This seems intuitively obvious, and would be easy to prove if we were working in $mathbb{N}$ endowed with the counting measure instead of $(0,infty)$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure. Unfortunately, Lebesgue-measurable sets can be very ugly indeed, and so that makes working with them difficult sometimes.
The following may help.
Fact. There exists a surjection $tau:Eto[0,b]$ which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving. (However, it is not necessarily injective, and hence need not be invertible.) A similar map exists for $F$.
real-analysis measure-theory
real-analysis measure-theory
asked yesterday
Ben W
1,079510
asked yesterday
Ben W
1,079510
edited yesterday
asked yesterday
Ben W
1,079510
asked yesterday
Ben W
1,079510
asked yesterday
Ben W
1,079510
1,079510
add a comment |
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004320%2fmeasure-preserving-transformation-inequality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
