Hahn Decomposition Theorem - Jordan Measure Decomposition

Jordan Measure Decomposition

A consequence of the Hahn decomposition theorem is the Jordan decomposition theorem, which states that every signed measure μ has a unique decomposition into a difference μ = μ+ − μ– of two positive measures μ+ and μ–, at least one of which is finite, such that μ+(E) = 0 if E ⊆ N and μ−(E) = 0 if E ⊆ P for any Hahn decomposition (P,N) of μ. μ+ and μ– are called the positive and negative part of μ, respectively. The pair (μ+, μ–) is called a Jordan decomposition (or sometimes Hahn–Jordan decomposition) of μ. The two measures can be defined as

and

for every E in Σ and any Hahn decomposition (P,N) of μ.

Note that the Jordan decomposition is unique, while the Hahn decomposition is only essentially unique.

The Jordan decomposition has the following corollary: Given a Jordan decomposition (μ+, μ−) of a finite signed measure μ,


\mu^+(E) = \sup_{B\in\Sigma, B\subset E} \mu(B)

and


\mu^-(E) = -\inf_{B\in\Sigma, B\subset E} \mu(B)

for any E in Σ. Also, if μ = ν+ − ν– for a pair of finite non-negative measures (ν+, ν–), then


\nu^+ \geq \mu^+ \text{ and } \nu^- \geq \mu^- .

The last expression means that the Jordan decomposition is the minimal decomposition of μ into a difference of non-negative measures. This is the minimality property of the Jordan decomposition.

Proof of the Jordan decomposition: For an elementary proof of the existence, uniqueness, and minimality of the Jordan measure decomposition see Fischer (2012).

Read more about this topic:  Hahn Decomposition Theorem

Famous quotes containing the words jordan and/or measure:

    Like a lot of Black women, I have always had to invent the power my freedom requires ...
    —June Jordan (b. 1936)

    Unless a group of workers know their work is under surveillance, that they are being rated as fairly as human beings, with the fallibility that goes with human judgment, can rate them, and that at least an attempt is made to measure their worth to an organization in relative terms, they are likely to sink back on length of service as the sole reason for retention and promotion.
    Mary Barnett Gilson (1877–?)