Conclusion
So, what is the answer to the question “How good is Lebesgue measure?” In the class of invariant measures, Lebesgue measure seems to be the best candidate to be a canonical measure. In the class of countably additive not necessarily invariant measures, to find a universal measure we have to use a strong additional set-theoretical assumption and this seems to be too high a price. Thus the best improvement of Lebesgue measure seems to be the Banach construction of a finitely additive isometrically invariant extension of Lebesgue measure on the plane and line. However, such a measure does not exist on Rn for n ≤ 3, and to keep the theory of measures uniform for all dimensions we cannot accept the Banach measure on the plane as the best solution to the measure problem. From this discussion it seems clear that there is no reason to depose Lebesgue measure from the place it has in modern mathematics. Lebesgue measure also has a nice topological property called regularity: for every EL and every ɛ > 0, there exists an open set V⊃E and closed set F ⊂ E such that m(V/F) < ɛ. It is not difficult to prove that Lebesgue measure is the richest countably additive measure having this property (see [Ru], Thm. 2.20, p. 50).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
S. Banach, Sur le problème de la mesure,Fund. Math. 4 (1923), 7–33.
S. Banach and A. Tarski, Sur la dÉcomposition des ensembles de points en parties respectivement congruents,Fund. Math. 6 (1924), 244–277.
K. Ciesielski, Algebraically invariant extensions of σ-finite measures on Euclidean spaces, to appear.
K. Ciesielski and A. Pelc, Extensions of invariant measures on Euclidean spaces,Fund. Math. 125 (1985), 1–10.
H. Eves,An Introduction to the History of Mathematics, Saunders College Publishing, 1983.
A. B. Haraziävili, On Sierpiński’s problem concerning strict extendability of an invariant measure,Soviet. Math. Dokl. 18 no. 1 (1977), 71–74.
T. Hawkins, Lebesgue Theory of Integration, The Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1970.
A. Hulanicki, Invariant extensions of the Lebesgue measure,Fund. Math. 51 (1962), 111–115.
T. Jech,Set Theory, Academic Press, 1978.
H. Lebesgue, Contribution à l’Étude des correspondances de M. Zermelo,Bull. Soc. Math, de France 35 (1907), 202–221.
R. D. Mauldin,The Scottish Book, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1981.
G. Moore,Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982.
S. S. Pkhakadze,K teorii lebegovskoi mery, Trudy Tbilisskogo Matematiceskogo Instituta 25, Tbilisi 1958 (in Russian).
J. Raisonnier, A mathematical proof of S. Shelah’s theorem on the measure problem and related results,Isr. J. Math. 48 (1984), 48–56.
W. Rudin,Real and Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1987.
R. Solovay, A model of set theory in which every set of reals is Lebesgue measurable,Ann. of Math. 92 (1970), 1–56.
E. Szpilrajn (alias E. Marczewski), Sur l’extension de la mesure lebesguienne,Fund. Math. 25 (1935) 551–558.
S. Ulam, Zur Mass-theorie in der allgemeinen Mengenlehre,Fund. Math 16 (1930), 140–150.
G. Vitali,Sul problema dÉlia mesure dei gruppi di punti di una retta, Bologna, 1905.
S. Wagon,The Banach-Tarski Paradox, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ciesielski, K. How good is lebesgue measure?. The Mathematical Intelligencer 11, 54–58 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03023824
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03023824