measure preserving transformation inequality











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $(lambda,Lambda)$ denote the Lebesgue measure space on $(0,infty)$. Suppose $E$ and $F$ are Lebesgue-measurable subsets of $(0,infty)$. A map $m:Fto E$ is called measure-presering whenever $lambda(m^{-1}(A))=lambda(A)$ for each measurable subset $A$ of $E$. It is called order-preserving if $aleq b$ in $F$ implies $m(a)leq m(b)$ in $E$. Denote by $mathbb{MO}(F,E)$ the set of all bijective maps $m:Fto E$ such that $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both order-preserving and measure-preserving.



Fix $rin(0,infty)$. Let $W:(0,infty)to(0,infty)$ be a positive decreasing function and $f:(0,infty)to[0,infty)$ be a nonnegative function increasing on $(0,r]$ and zero on $(r,infty)$.



Conjecture. Suppose $Esubset(0,r]$ with $b=lambda(E)=lambda(F)leq r$, and $minmathbb{MO}(F,E)$. Then
$$int_0^inftylambda{xin(0,b]:f(t+r-b)W(t)>x};dtgeqint_0^inftylambda{xin F:(fcirc m)(t)W(t)>x};dt.$$
Or, equivalently,
$$int_0^bf(t+r-b)W(t);dtgeqint_F(fcirc m)(t)W(t);dt.$$



This seems intuitively obvious, and would be easy to prove if we were working in $mathbb{N}$ endowed with the counting measure instead of $(0,infty)$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure. Unfortunately, Lebesgue-measurable sets can be very ugly indeed, and so that makes working with them difficult sometimes.



The following may help.



Fact. There exists a surjection $tau:Eto[0,b]$ which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving. (However, it is not necessarily injective, and hence need not be invertible.) A similar map exists for $F$.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $(lambda,Lambda)$ denote the Lebesgue measure space on $(0,infty)$. Suppose $E$ and $F$ are Lebesgue-measurable subsets of $(0,infty)$. A map $m:Fto E$ is called measure-presering whenever $lambda(m^{-1}(A))=lambda(A)$ for each measurable subset $A$ of $E$. It is called order-preserving if $aleq b$ in $F$ implies $m(a)leq m(b)$ in $E$. Denote by $mathbb{MO}(F,E)$ the set of all bijective maps $m:Fto E$ such that $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both order-preserving and measure-preserving.



    Fix $rin(0,infty)$. Let $W:(0,infty)to(0,infty)$ be a positive decreasing function and $f:(0,infty)to[0,infty)$ be a nonnegative function increasing on $(0,r]$ and zero on $(r,infty)$.



    Conjecture. Suppose $Esubset(0,r]$ with $b=lambda(E)=lambda(F)leq r$, and $minmathbb{MO}(F,E)$. Then
    $$int_0^inftylambda{xin(0,b]:f(t+r-b)W(t)>x};dtgeqint_0^inftylambda{xin F:(fcirc m)(t)W(t)>x};dt.$$
    Or, equivalently,
    $$int_0^bf(t+r-b)W(t);dtgeqint_F(fcirc m)(t)W(t);dt.$$



    This seems intuitively obvious, and would be easy to prove if we were working in $mathbb{N}$ endowed with the counting measure instead of $(0,infty)$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure. Unfortunately, Lebesgue-measurable sets can be very ugly indeed, and so that makes working with them difficult sometimes.



    The following may help.



    Fact. There exists a surjection $tau:Eto[0,b]$ which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving. (However, it is not necessarily injective, and hence need not be invertible.) A similar map exists for $F$.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $(lambda,Lambda)$ denote the Lebesgue measure space on $(0,infty)$. Suppose $E$ and $F$ are Lebesgue-measurable subsets of $(0,infty)$. A map $m:Fto E$ is called measure-presering whenever $lambda(m^{-1}(A))=lambda(A)$ for each measurable subset $A$ of $E$. It is called order-preserving if $aleq b$ in $F$ implies $m(a)leq m(b)$ in $E$. Denote by $mathbb{MO}(F,E)$ the set of all bijective maps $m:Fto E$ such that $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both order-preserving and measure-preserving.



      Fix $rin(0,infty)$. Let $W:(0,infty)to(0,infty)$ be a positive decreasing function and $f:(0,infty)to[0,infty)$ be a nonnegative function increasing on $(0,r]$ and zero on $(r,infty)$.



      Conjecture. Suppose $Esubset(0,r]$ with $b=lambda(E)=lambda(F)leq r$, and $minmathbb{MO}(F,E)$. Then
      $$int_0^inftylambda{xin(0,b]:f(t+r-b)W(t)>x};dtgeqint_0^inftylambda{xin F:(fcirc m)(t)W(t)>x};dt.$$
      Or, equivalently,
      $$int_0^bf(t+r-b)W(t);dtgeqint_F(fcirc m)(t)W(t);dt.$$



      This seems intuitively obvious, and would be easy to prove if we were working in $mathbb{N}$ endowed with the counting measure instead of $(0,infty)$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure. Unfortunately, Lebesgue-measurable sets can be very ugly indeed, and so that makes working with them difficult sometimes.



      The following may help.



      Fact. There exists a surjection $tau:Eto[0,b]$ which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving. (However, it is not necessarily injective, and hence need not be invertible.) A similar map exists for $F$.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Let $(lambda,Lambda)$ denote the Lebesgue measure space on $(0,infty)$. Suppose $E$ and $F$ are Lebesgue-measurable subsets of $(0,infty)$. A map $m:Fto E$ is called measure-presering whenever $lambda(m^{-1}(A))=lambda(A)$ for each measurable subset $A$ of $E$. It is called order-preserving if $aleq b$ in $F$ implies $m(a)leq m(b)$ in $E$. Denote by $mathbb{MO}(F,E)$ the set of all bijective maps $m:Fto E$ such that $m$ and $m^{-1}$ are both order-preserving and measure-preserving.



      Fix $rin(0,infty)$. Let $W:(0,infty)to(0,infty)$ be a positive decreasing function and $f:(0,infty)to[0,infty)$ be a nonnegative function increasing on $(0,r]$ and zero on $(r,infty)$.



      Conjecture. Suppose $Esubset(0,r]$ with $b=lambda(E)=lambda(F)leq r$, and $minmathbb{MO}(F,E)$. Then
      $$int_0^inftylambda{xin(0,b]:f(t+r-b)W(t)>x};dtgeqint_0^inftylambda{xin F:(fcirc m)(t)W(t)>x};dt.$$
      Or, equivalently,
      $$int_0^bf(t+r-b)W(t);dtgeqint_F(fcirc m)(t)W(t);dt.$$



      This seems intuitively obvious, and would be easy to prove if we were working in $mathbb{N}$ endowed with the counting measure instead of $(0,infty)$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure. Unfortunately, Lebesgue-measurable sets can be very ugly indeed, and so that makes working with them difficult sometimes.



      The following may help.



      Fact. There exists a surjection $tau:Eto[0,b]$ which is both measure-preserving and order-preserving. (However, it is not necessarily injective, and hence need not be invertible.) A similar map exists for $F$.







      real-analysis measure-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 19 at 13:32

























      asked Nov 19 at 0:14









      Ben W

      1,234510




      1,234510



























          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004320%2fmeasure-preserving-transformation-inequality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown






























          active

          oldest

          votes













          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes
















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004320%2fmeasure-preserving-transformation-inequality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Aardman Animations

          Are they similar matrix

          “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis