202405232128
Status: #idea
Tags: Measure Theory
Measurable Maps
Say we have two spaces
It is possible to define a map from
So we say that a map is measurable if for any element in
Essentially we define a map as follows:
We say that the function is measurable is
So, in other words the function is said to be measurable if when we take the value of the inverse of the function of a measurable set, the set obtained is still measurable.
A classic example of measurable maps is Indicator Functions.
Why that weird definition in terms of inverse?
It's due to how they are used in application rather than from intrinsic properties of measurable spaces and what not.
Generally when trying to solve a problem, and that you have a map you will be working in another dimension. You can see it as an adventurer stepping into a portal. Once on the other side of that portal, the things that you can do are already forced upon you in the sense that you can only measure things that are measurable. Therefore there is no need to make that a property of the definition. However, if you are doing work in that world, at some point you'll want to go back home for further analysis. In such a case it'd be silly if the object that you could perfectly measure in one dimension is now dead weight in your own dimension.
The intuition is similar here. If there's a set of interest in
Why Do We Care?
Besides what is clear from the need to be able to analyze sets across multiple dimensions, it is a crucial notion in Integration Theory especially when it comes to Lebesgue Integrals.