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.
Measures agreeing on a generating pi-system are equal under an increasing finite-measure exhaustion from that pi-system
Statement
Let be a pi-system on generating , and let be measures on that agree on . Suppose there is an increasing sequence in with
Then on .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Measures , a generating pi-system , and an increasing finite-measure exhaustion as in the Statement.
Finite measures agreeing on a generating pi-system and on the whole space are equal (Finite measures agreeing on a generating pi-system and on the whole space are equal).
Measures are continuous from below (Continuity from below for measures).
A pi-system is closed under binary intersections (Pi-systems).
For a measurable , the set function is a measure on the original sigma-algebra (The restriction of a measure to a measurable set is a measure).
Proof
Fix and define and on . By [L4] these are measures, and their total masses are the common finite value .
If , then by [L3], so .
The finite uniqueness lemma applied to steps 1.1 and 1.2 gives for every and every .
For fixed , the sets increase to ; continuity from below and step 2.1 give . Thus the measures agree everywhere.
Depends on
Used by
- Iid strong law fails at infinite absolute mean Counterexample
- Two four-point probability measures agree on a generating family that is not a pi-system Counterexample
- Strong law estimator of an integrable mean Example
- FALSE: agreement on an arbitrary generating family determines a measure False statement
- A C¹ diffeomorphism satisfies the change-of-variables formula for nonnegative Lebesgue measurable functions Theorem
- A sigma-finite premeasure has at most one extension to its generated sigma-algebra Theorem
- A translation-invariant measure on the Borel sets of ℝⁿ giving the unit cube measure one is the restriction of Lebesgue measure Theorem
- For sigma-finite factors, the product measure exists, has the rectangle formula, is sigma-finite, and is unique Theorem
- Measure preservation can be checked on a generating pi-system Theorem
- On Borel subsets of Rᵐ⁺ⁿ, the product lambdaₘ times lambdaₙ agrees with lambdaₘ₊ₙ Theorem
- Polar coordinates decompose Lebesgue measure into rⁿ⁻¹ dr d sigma Theorem
- The interval data on (a,b] determines the Borel measure uniquely Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
14 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
- D. Pollard, A User's Guide to Measure Theoretic Probability, §10 (standard reference, not scraped)