TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-31

How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

For finite signed or complex measures, absolute continuity is equivalent to the epsilon-delta small-set condition

Statement

Let $μ$ be a sigma-finite positive measure and let $ν$ be a finite signed measure or a finite complex measure on the same measurable space. Then the following are equivalent:

$ν ≪ μ$ ;
for every $ε > 0$ there exists $δ > 0$ such that $μ (E) < δ ⟹ ∣ ν (E) ∣ < ε (E \in A) .$

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite signed or finite complex measure $ν$ and a sigma-finite positive measure $μ$ .

[L1]

If $ν ≪ μ$ , then $∣ ν ∣ (E) = \int_{E} ∣ d ν / d μ ∣ d μ$ for every measurable $E$ . (The Radon-Nikodym derivative as an almost-everywhere equivalence class, The total variation of an absolutely continuous signed or complex measure has density the absolute value of the Radon-Nikodym derivative)

[L2]

Absolute continuity of the integral gives the $ε$ - $δ$ estimate for integrable absolute values. (Absolute continuity of the integral)

[L3]

For signed or complex measures, $∣ ν ∣ ≪ μ$ is equivalent to $ν ≪ μ$ , and always $∣ ν (E) ∣ \leq ∣ ν ∣ (E)$ . (For signed and complex measures, absolute continuity is equivalent for the measure, its Jordan or real-imaginary parts, and its total variation, The total variation |nu|(E) from countable measurable partitions)

Proof

technique · direct

1.1

Assume $ν ≪ μ$ and let $ε > 0$ . By [L1], the function $∣ d ν / d μ ∣$ is integrable, so [L2] yields $δ > 0$ such that $μ (E) < δ$ implies $∣ ν ∣ (E) = \int_{E} ∣ \frac{d ν}{d μ} ∣ d μ < ε .$ Then [L3] gives $∣ ν (E) ∣ < ε$ . This proves condition 2.

L1L2L3choose

1.2

Assume condition 2. If $μ (E) = 0$ , then $μ (E) < δ$ for every $δ > 0$ , so condition 2 forces $∣ ν (E) ∣ < ε$ for every $ε > 0$ . Hence $ν (E) = 0$ , and therefore $ν ≪ μ$ .

givenalgebra

2.1

Step 1.1 proves $(1) \Rightarrow (2)$ and step 1.2 proves $(2) \Rightarrow (1)$ .

step 1.1step 1.2∎

Depends on

Used by

x⁻¹dλ on (0,1) shows finiteness is needed in the epsilon-delta criterion Counterexample
FALSE: the epsilon-delta condition characterises absolute continuity for every measure False statement

Dependency tree · two levels

22 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources

Richard F. Bass, Real Analysis for Graduate Students, Proposition 13.2 (standard reference, not scraped)
John K. Hunter, Measure Theory, Proposition 6.25 (standard reference, not scraped)
Sheldon Axler, Measure, Integration & Real Analysis, Exercise 14 (standard reference, not scraped)