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.
Hahn decomposition for signed measures, unique up to total-variation-null sets
Statement
Let be a signed measure on . Then there exist measurable sets such that is positive for , and is negative for .
If is another such pair, then is null for and hence has total variation .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A signed measure on .
A measurable set is positive, negative, or null according to the signs of the signed measures of all its measurable subsets. (Positive, negative, and null sets for a signed measure)
A measurable set of positive finite signed measure contains a positive subset whose signed measure is at least as large. (A set of positive finite signed measure contains a positive subset of at least the same mass)
A set is null for a signed measure exactly when its total variation there is . (A set is null for a signed measure exactly when its total variation is zero there)
Proof
Replacing by swaps positive and negative sets, so it is enough [L1, choose] to treat the case in which for every measurable . Let Because is positive, . Choose positive sets with , and put .
The union is positive: if is measurable, define [L1, step 1.1] and for . Then the are pairwise disjoint measurable subsets of the positive sets , so each by [L1], and . Countable additivity gives , so [L1] makes positive. Because each , one has ; letting yields .
Let . If were not negative, [L1] would give a [L1, L2, step 2.1] measurable with . By [L2], would contain a positive subset with . Then would be a positive set, would be disjoint from , and contradicting the definition of . Hence is negative.
If is another Hahn decomposition, then [L1, L3, step 3.1] and . Thus each of and is both positive and negative, hence null by [L1]. Their union is , so [L3] gives .
Steps 2.1 through 4.1 give a positive set , a negative set , [step 2.1, step 3.1, step 4.1] ∎ and uniqueness up to total-variation-null sets.
Depends on
Used by
- Moving a total-variation-null set changes a Hahn decomposition Counterexample
- The signed measure delta₁ minus delta_-1 has the obvious Hahn and Jordan decomposition Example
- The signed measure with density sin x on [0,2pi] exhibits the nonuniqueness of Hahn decompositions Example
- FALSE: a Hahn decomposition is unique False statement
- A real L¹ density defines a finite signed measure with its canonical Hahn and Jordan data Theorem
- Jordan decomposition of a signed measure into unique mutually singular positive parts Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
7 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
- John K. Hunter, Measure Theory, Theorem 6.18 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Richard F. Bass, Real Analysis for Graduate Students, Theorem 12.5 (standard reference, not scraped)