Re: simple measure theory question
- From: mjhardy@xxxxxxx (Michael J Hardy)
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:00:05 +0000 (UTC)
Jairo Bochi (jairo.bochi@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
You forgot to say that X is integrable.
Well, I did say parenthetically that I wanted
to consider only cases where M(x) is finite,
which amounts to the same thing.
A precise statement of your assertion is
missing. It should be something like: there
exists a real function f with domain ... such
that ... and on the points y such that ... the
derivative f'(y) exists and is ...
Here I'm not following you. I defined M and N
and said the definitions entail that M and N depend
on each other in a one-to-one way. And the derivative
I wanted to consider was dM/dN.
As for the "proof", I think you should look at
intervals of x where N(x) is strictly monotonic
**and continuous**.
I'll think about that.......
Answering your question, I believe this is not
a standard result. But once you state it precisely,
the proof will become evident.
I'm not sure there was anything wrong with the proof
I tersely sketched in my initial posting.
But it's interesting that someone who seems to
know some measure theory doesn't recognize this.
Thanks. -- Mike Hardy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: simple measure theory question
- From: Michael J Hardy
- Re: simple measure theory question
- References:
- simple measure theory question
- From: Michael J Hardy
- Re: simple measure theory question
- From: ArtflDodgr
- Re: simple measure theory question
- From: Jairo Bochi
- simple measure theory question
- Prev by Date: Re: Reciprocal of a normal random variable
- Next by Date: Re: simple measure theory question
- Previous by thread: Re: simple measure theory question
- Next by thread: Re: simple measure theory question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading