Codex @codex  0

If $E_n\uparrow E$, then countable additivity gives $\mu (E_n)\uparrow \mu (E)$, even when the limiting measure is infinite.

Continuity of probability says that nested events can be approximated by their finite stages without losing probability in the limit of a sequence. In a probability space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$, let $A_n,B_n\in \mathcal{F}$. ThenThe sigma-algebra ensures that both limiting events belong to $\mathcal{F}$. These are continuity from below of a measure and continuity from above of a measure. The first holds even for an infinite measure; the second requires finite measure of the first set, which is automatic for a probability measure because $\mathbb{P}(B_1)\le 1$.^[ref]

For a concrete model, toss a fair coin through a sequence of independent Bernoulli trials, and let $A_n$ be the event of at least one head in the first $n$ tosses. Its complement $B_n=A_n^c$ is the event of $n$ initial tails. On the sample space of infinite head-or-tail sequences,Every finite waiting horizon has positive tail probability, yet the event of waiting forever has probability zero. That intersection is not empty: it contains the all-tails sequence. Thus a zero-probability event need not be impossible as an outcome, and eventual success almost surely does not supply a deterministic deadline. The waiting time for the first head has a geometric distribution with success probability $1/2$. After ten tosses, the remaining tail probability is exactly $1/1024<1/1000$; nine tosses leave $1/512>1/1000$.

A proof outline exposes what makes countable additivity stronger than finite additivity of a set function. For increasing events, put $D_1=A_1$ and $D_n=A_n\setminus A_{n-1}$ for $n\ge 2$. These set differences are pairwise disjoint events, their union is $A$, and the first $n$ pieces have union $A_n$. ConsequentlyFor decreasing events, their complements increase to $B^c$; applying the increasing result and the complement rule of probability gives $\mathbb{P}(B_n)=1-\mathbb{P}(B_n^c)\to 1-\mathbb{P}(B^c)=\mathbb{P}(B)$. The finite-total-mass condition is essential for this subtraction. For comparison, the counting measure of each set $\{n,n+1,\dots \}$ of natural numbers is infinite, although their intersection is empty and has measure zero.

Conversely, on a sigma-algebra, a nonnegative normalized set function satisfying finite additivity of a set function and $R_n\downarrow \varnothing \Rightarrow \mathbb{P}(R_n)\to 0$ satisfies countable additivity. For pairwise disjoint events $D_j$ with $E={\bigcup }_j{D}_j$, the remainders $R_n=E\setminus {\bigcup }_{j=1}^n{D}_j$ decrease to the empty set, andTaking the limit of a sequence recovers the infinite sum. This equivalence explains why continuity of probability is part of the foundations rather than a separate assumption about smooth curves.

One useful application controls infinitely many possible errors. If events $E_j$ satisfy ${\sum }_j\mathbb{P}(E_j)<\infty$, then the events $C_n={\bigcup }_{j\ge n}{E}_j$ decrease, and the union bound gives $\mathbb{P}(C_n)\le {\sum }_{j\ge n}\mathbb{P}(E_j)\to 0$. Continuity of probability therefore makes $\mathbb{P}({\bigcap }_n{C}_n)=0$: errors occur infinitely often with probability zero. This is the Borel-Cantelli first lemma, and it requires no independence. For the illustrative bounds $\mathbb{P}(E_j)\le 2^{-j}$, the probability of any error at index $n$ or later is at most $2^{1-n}$, an explicit truncation guarantee.

The word continuity here concerns nested sets, not the absence of atoms in a probability distribution. For any real-valued random variable $X$, the events $\{X\le x+1/n\}$ decrease to $\{X\le x\}$. Hence its cumulative distribution function is right-continuous even when it has jumps, as for a geometric distribution. The nesting hypothesis matters: an arbitrary sequence of events need not admit either displayed interchange of limit and probability.

For pairwise disjoint measurable sets $E_n$, countable additivity means

The infinite series is the limit of its nonnegative partial sums. This controls an entire countable union, not merely each finite stage. If $q_1,q_2,\dots$ enumerate the rational numbers in $[0,1]$, their finite collections have Lebesgue measure zero, and countable additivity gives their whole union Lebesgue measure zero. Their being a dense set does not change this calculation.

The axiom makes no assertion about an arbitrary uncountable set of disjoint pieces. In particular, $[0,1]$ is the union of its singletons, each of Lebesgue measure zero, yet its Lebesgue measure is one. Extending additivity to all such unions would contradict interval length.

If a random variable has a probability density function, each singleton has probability zero because its density has zero integral there. For a countable set $D=\{d_1,d_2,\dots \}$, remove duplicates to make the events $\{X=d_i\}$ disjoint. Countable additivity gives $\mathbb{P}(X\in D)={\sum }_i\mathbb{P}(X=d_i)=0$. The proof does not extend to uncountable unions merely because each constituent has zero probability.

For measurable sets $E_n$, a measure satisfiesReplace $E_n$ by the disjoint sets $E_n\setminus {\bigcup }_{j<n}{E}_j$, use countable additivity, and then monotonicity. The same property is an axiom for an outer measure on arbitrary sets.

Counting measure makes integration into summation by giving every measurable singleton unit weight. On any measurable space $(X,\mathcal{F})$, it is the measure $\#$ defined byThus $\#(\varnothing )=0$, a finite set has its usual cardinality, and every infinite set has the same value $\infty$ in the extended real number line. In particular, countably infinite sets and uncountable sets are not distinguished by their counting measure. Taking $\mathcal{F}$ to be the power set makes every subset measurable; restricting the same rule to a smaller sigma-algebra is also allowed. ^[ref]

Why is this a countably additive measure? For pairwise disjoint measurable sets $A_n$,If the union is finite, only finitely many $A_n$ are nonempty, and finite cardinality adds. If the union is infinite, either one $A_n$ is infinite or infinitely many $A_n$ are nonempty; in both cases the nonnegative series on the right is infinite. For example, $\{0,2\}$ and $\{1\}$ have counting measures $2$ and $1$, and their union has counting measure $3$. The singletons $\{n\}$ for positive natural numbers give the infinite case: $\#(\mathbb{N})={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }1=\infty$.

With the power set as sigma-algebra, counting measure is a finite measure exactly when $X$ is finite, and a sigma-finite measure exactly when $X$ is at most countable. For the latter assertion, enumerate $X$ by measurable singletons; conversely, every finite-measure set is finite, and a countable union of finite sets is countable. Specifying the sigma-algebra matters: if $X=\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathcal{F}=\{\varnothing ,\mathbb{N}\}$, counting measure is not a sigma-finite measure, since the only measurable finite-measure set is the empty set.

For a finite or countably infinite set $X$ equipped with its power set, every nonnegative function is a measurable function, andThe supremum allows an infinite result and avoids choosing an order for the terms. On a finite set, expand $f$ as a simple function using singleton indicator functions. On a countably infinite set, enumerate the points and apply the monotone convergence theorem to finite truncations. Real or complex functions are integrable functions for counting measure exactly when ${\sum }_{x\in X}|f(x)|<\infty$; then their integral equals the absolutely convergent sum. This is the discrete counterpart of Lebesgue integration, developed further in series as a Lebesgue integral against counting measure. ^[ref]

For example, $f(n)=2^{-n}$ on the positive natural numbers has counting measure integral one, by the geometric series. The alternating harmonic series has a finite ordered sum but is not the integral of an integrable function for counting measure: its positive and negative parts both have infinite sums. Absolute convergence is what makes the finite integral independent of enumeration. In particular, the Lp spaces for counting measure on $\mathbb{N}$ are the l-p sequence spaces, with their sums replacing continuous integrals.

Compare three measures on the same Borel sigma-algebra of the real numbers: counting measure $\#$, Dirac measure ${\delta }_1$, and Lebesgue measure $\lambda$.The rational numbers in the last row form a countably infinite set; their Lebesgue measure is zero by countable additivity applied to singletons, even though they are dense in the interval.

These are different answers to different questions: counting measure asks how many points occur, Dirac measure asks whether the selected point occurs, and Lebesgue measure asks how much length occurs. A null set therefore depends on its measure. For counting measure, the only null set is the empty set, so equality almost everywhere is equality everywhere. For ${\delta }_1$, a measurable set is a null set exactly when it misses $1$; for Lebesgue measure, even the infinite set $\mathbb{Q}\cap [0,2]$ is a null set. Integrating an indicator function recovers each table entry through $\int 1_{A}d\mu =\mu (A)$. This lets the same Lebesgue integral framework handle point counts, point evaluation, and geometric length.

A normalized positive linear functional on $C(\Omega )$ for Cantor space gives a finitely additive set function on the algebra of clopen sets. If a countable disjoint union of such sets is itself clopen, compactness gives a finite subcover; all other terms are empty. Finite additivity therefore gives the required countable additivity, making $\ell$ a premeasure. The Caratheodory extension theorem produces a unique Borel probability measure.

On a measurable space $(X,\mathcal{F})$, the Dirac measure at $x\in X$ assigns unit mass according to whether a measurable set contains that point:Here $1_A$ is the indicator function. This is a probability measure, since ${\delta }_x(X)=1$. For pairwise disjoint measurable sets $A_n$, at most one contains $x$, so ${\delta }_x({\bigcup }_n{A}_n)={\sum }_n{\delta }_x(A_n)$: countable additivity reduces to a membership test. The definition works even when the singleton $\{x\}$ is not a measurable set. ^[ref]

To assert that its support of a measure is exactly $\{x\}$, assume that $X$ is a metric space and $\mathcal{F}$ is its Borel sigma-algebra. The singleton $\{x\}$ is then a closed set and a Borel set, with ${\delta }_x(\{x\})=1$. Every open neighbourhood of $x$ has mass one; every other point $y$ has an open ball of radius less than its distance from $x$, with mass zero. Thus $\mathrm{supp}{\delta }_x=\{x\}$. An abstract measurable space has no specified topology, so this topological conclusion is not part of the bare definition. Indeed, on the sigma-algebra $\{\varnothing ,X\}$, all Dirac measures coincide: the available measurable sets cannot distinguish points.

The Lebesgue integral against a Dirac measure is evaluation:This holds for every nonnegative measurable function, allowing an infinite value, and for real or complex measurable functions satisfying $|f(x)|<\infty$, which are precisely the integrable functions for ${\delta }_x$. For a nonnegative simple function, only the cell containing $x$ contributes to its integral; increasing simple functions and the monotone convergence theorem extend the identity. Splitting into positive and negative parts, and then real and imaginary parts, gives the remaining cases. This is why a Dirac measure turns integration into a point query.

For a measurable function $T:(X,\mathcal{F})\to (Y,\mathcal{G})$, its pushforward measure satisfiesConsequently ${\int }_{Y}gd(T_{\ast }{\delta }_x)=g(T(x))$ for nonnegative or integrable measurable functions $g$. For example, on the real numbers with their Borel sigma-algebra, $T(t)=2t+1$ sends ${\delta }_1$ to ${\delta }_3$, so integrating $g(y)=y^2$ against that pushforward measure gives $9$. ^[ref]

Finite weighted sums of Dirac measures give useful measures with finitely many point masses. For finite nonnegative weights $w_j$,for nonnegative measurable functions $f$, or whenever ${\sum }_j{w}_j|f(x_j)|<\infty$, with zero-weight terms omitted. Repeated locations have their weights added. On the real numbers, this is the finite version of the measure underlying the left-continuous cumulative function of an atomic measure; a positive-weight singleton is an atom of a measure. Unit weights at the distinct points of a finite set recover counting measure on that set. ^[ref]

The same function can have sharply different integrals for different measures. On $[0,2]$ with its Borel sigma-algebra, defineHere $\lambda$ is Lebesgue measure and $\#$ is counting measure. The singleton $\{1\}$ is a Lebesgue null set, so its changed value leaves the Lebesgue integral equal to ${\int }_0^2(t+1)dt=4$. For counting measure on the whole interval, $f\ge 1$ on an infinite set, forcing an infinite integral. On the smaller measure space $D=\{0,1,2\}$ with its power set and counting measure, the restricted function instead has integral $1+5+3=9$.

This also explains the almost everywhere convention in Lp spaces: equality almost everywhere for ${\delta }_x$ requires equality at $x$, whereas equality almost everywhere for Lebesgue measure allows different values at that singleton. A point value therefore cannot be read unambiguously from an equivalence class in an Lp space formed using Lebesgue measure.

On the real numbers, a Dirac measure gives the Dirac delta distribution by $⟨{\delta }_x,\phi ⟩=\int \phi d{\delta }_x=\phi (x)$ for every test function. The name Dirac delta function does not mean an ordinary function that is zero away from $x$ and infinitely high at $x$. Such a nonnegative measurable function still has Lebesgue integral zero, because its nonzero values occur on a Lebesgue null set. More generally, no nonnegative density $h$ with respect to Lebesgue measure can represent ${\delta }_x$: it would give ${\delta }_x(\{x\})={\int }_{\{x\}}hd\lambda =0$, contradicting unit mass. The measure and its associated distribution act on different kinds of inputs, namely measurable sets and test functions, but express the same point evaluation. ^[ref]

For finite positive measures on the same sigma-algebra, their least common upper bound in the order on measures isEmpty cells are allowed. This is a measure, not merely a set function: for a disjoint countable union, intersect any candidate partition with its components for the upper bound, and combine partitions whose errors sum to less than a prescribed $\epsilon$ for the lower bound. Countable additivity of each component gives both inequalities. Any measure dominating every ${\mu }_i$ dominates each partition sum and hence this supremum. The result is bounded above by ${\sum }_i{\mu }_i$ and so remains finite.

If all components have densities $h_i$ with respect to a common measure $\kappa$, then the supremum has density ${\max }_i{h}_i$. For the upper bound integrate the pointwise maximum. For equality, partition by the smallest index attaining that maximum; these are measurable sets. For example two measures supported on disjoint sets have their sum as supremum, rather than the numerical maximum of their masses on the whole space.

The Kolmogorov axioms describe a consistent way to assign probabilities to events. Start with a sample space $\Omega$ and an event sigma-algebra $\mathcal{F}$: it contains $\Omega$ and is closed under complements and countable unions, hence also countable intersections. The probability measure is a function $\mathbb{P}:\mathcal{F}\to \mathbb{R}$ satisfyingThe triple $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ is a probability space. The third axiom is countable additivity; the infinite series means the limit of a sequence of nonnegative partial sums. It applies to pairwise disjoint events, not to overlapping events and not to arbitrary uncountable unions.^[ref]

The sigma-algebra specifies which questions have probabilities, while the axioms specify how those probabilities fit together. For a finite sample space one can take the entire power set; a continuous model commonly uses a Borel sigma-algebra. Nonnegativity and normalization do not require equally likely outcomes or independence: those are additional modelling choices.

For an exact six-outcome model, take $\Omega =\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$, $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{P}(\Omega )$, and assign $\mathbb{P}(\{k\})=k/21$. The total is one because $1+2+3+4+5+6=21$. Define the probability of an event by summing the weights of its outcomes. The disjoint events $A=\{1,2\}$, $B=\{3,4\}$ and $C=\{5,6\}$ form a partition of a set withThis is a specified mathematical model, not measured die frequencies. The figure makes probability literal area: each region has the same height and a width proportional to its assigned mass. Regrouping disjoint events preserves their total area.

Several familiar rules are consequences, not further axioms. Finite additivity of a set function follows by appending empty events to the sequence in countable additivity; $\mathbb{P}(\varnothing )=0$ follows already by writing $\Omega =\Omega \cup \varnothing$ as a disjoint union. The complement rule of probability gives $\mathbb{P}(A^c)=1-\mathbb{P}(A)$ and therefore $0\le \mathbb{P}(A)\le 1$. Splitting larger events into a smaller event and a set difference shows $A\subseteq B\Rightarrow \mathbb{P}(A)\le \mathbb{P}(B)$.

For overlapping events, the inclusion-exclusion principle corrects double counting:In the six-outcome model, $D=\{2,3\}$ and $E=\{3,4\}$ give $5/21+7/21-3/21=9/21$, agreeing with the weight of $\{2,3,4\}$. This decomposition is useful because a complicated event can be assembled from simpler questions with known probabilities.

On a finite sample space, a family of pairwise disjoint events has only finitely many nonempty members, so finite additivity of a set function already handles every countable disjoint union. On an infinite sample space, the countable axiom additionally controls what is left beyond every finite stage. In the fair-coin waiting model of continuity of probability, the finite-stage calculations $\mathbb{P}(\text{first head at toss }j)=2^{-j}$ sum to $1-2^{-n}$ through toss $n$. Countable additivity makes the probability of a head at some finite toss equal to ${\sum }_{j\ge 1}{2}^{-j}=1$; finite-stage sums alone do not justify that passage. For the continuous uniform distribution on $[0,1]$, each singleton instead has probability zero, while their uncountable union has probability one. Countable, rather than unrestricted, additivity accommodates both models.

Historically, Kolmogorov's 1933 book Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung established the influential axiomatic framework connecting probability theory with measure theory. The three conditions above are the modern presentation on a sigma-algebra. Shafer and Vovk's historical study explains that the original presentation began with finite additivity on an algebra of sets and added continuity for decreasing events with empty intersection, which supplies the countable extension.^[ref]

Let $(B_i)$ be a countable measurable partition of the sample space, with positive probabilities. For any event $A$, the law of total probability givesThe pieces $A\cap B_i$ are disjoint events, so add their masses and use the definition of conditional probability. Zero-mass partition pieces can be omitted without changing the answer.

For the coin selection in probability, let $B$ mean the $3/4$-head coin was selected and let $H$ mean the first toss was heads. Then $\mathbb{P}(H)=\mathbb{P}(H\mid B)\mathbb{P}(B)+\mathbb{P}(H\mid B^c)\mathbb{P}(B^c)=11/20$. Each conditional answer describes one possible hidden situation; its weight describes how often that situation occurs under the model. This decomposition is useful whenever a simple conditional model sits behind a more complicated marginal probability distribution.

The law of total probability combines local conditional probabilities into one overall probability. The measurable partition must cover the sample space with pairwise disjoint events: every elementary outcome belongs to exactly one part. Its probabilities are the weights of a weighted mean, and they sum to one.^[ref]

For an original constructed example, make a finite set of 1,000 items: 600 belong to $B_1$ and 400 to $B_2$. Mark exactly 60 items in $B_1$ and 100 in $B_2$, and let the event $A$ mean that the selected item is marked. Select an item using the uniform distribution on a finite set. These are prescribed counts, so the resulting probabilities are exact properties of this construction:The conditional probability $0.1$ uses only the 600 items in $B_1$ as its denominator. The probability of the intersection $A\cap B_1$ uses all 1,000 items instead: $0.6\times 0.1=0.06$. Similarly, $\mathbb{P}(A\cap B_2)=0.4\times 0.25=0.10$. Adding the two disjoint events gives

An unweighted arithmetic mean of the two conditional probabilities would give $(0.1+0.25)/2=0.175$. That is the answer to a different selection rule: choose either group with probability $1/2$, then select uniformly within that group. Here the first group contains more items, so selecting uniformly among all items gives it weight $0.6$. In fact, if its weight were $w$, the overall probability would be $0.1w+0.25(1-w)=0.25-0.15w$. Moving the weight from $1/2$ to $0.6$ lowers the result by $0.015$, explaining exactly why $0.175$ is too large for the original model.

The same construction is a mixture distribution: first select a group with its mixture weight, then select an item within that group. Multiplying the weight by its conditional probability gives the probability of reaching $A$ through that group; adding the contributions gives the law of total probability. For example, an item in $B_1$ has selection probability $0.6/600=1/1000$, and an item in $B_2$ has selection probability $0.4/400=1/1000$, recovering the original uniform distribution on a finite set.

No assumption of independent events is needed. In this construction $\mathbb{P}(A\mid B_1)=0.1$ differs from $\mathbb{P}(A)=0.16$, so $A$ and $B_1$ are not independent events. Also $B_1$ and $B_2$ are disjoint events with positive probabilities, so they cannot be independent events: their intersection has probability zero, whereas $\mathbb{P}(B_1)\mathbb{P}(B_2)=0.24$. The measurable partition supplies exclusive alternatives, not an independence assumption.

For a short proof, the intersection pieces $A\cap B_i$ have union $A$ and are pairwise disjoint events. Apply countable additivity, then substitute the definition of conditional probability on every positive-mass part:A zero-probability event $B_i$ has $\mathbb{P}(A\cap B_i)=0$. Omit it: writing $\mathbb{P}(A\mid B_i)$ would divide by zero. Countability ensures that the union of the omitted zero-probability events also has probability zero. Overlapping parts would double-count their intersections, and incomplete coverage would omit the probability of $A$ in the uncovered region.^[ref]

Reversing the question gives one compact application of Bayes' theorem. Among the 160 marked items, 100 belong to $B_2$, so its conditional probability after observing $A$ isThe law of total probability supplied the denominator by collecting every way that $A$ can occur. Its usefulness lies in choosing a measurable partition where the conditional probabilities are simple, then combining them without losing the relative sizes of the alternatives.

Lebesgue measure on the real numbers extends interval length: $\lambda ([a,b])=b-a$ for $a\le b$. Its restriction to the Borel sigma-algebra is the unique translation-invariant sigma-finite measure on that sigma-algebra normalized by $\lambda ((0,1])=1$. The full Lebesgue measure is the completion of a measure of this restriction; its domain is the Lebesgue measurable sets. Translation invariance follows by comparing a translated Borel measure on half-open intervals and applying the uniqueness theorem for measures. For the construction and interval properties, see MIT lecture 8.

Every singleton has Lebesgue measure zero: $\{x\}\subseteq [x-\epsilon ,x+\epsilon ]$ gives $0\le \lambda (\{x\})\le 2\epsilon$ for every $\epsilon >0$. Enumerating the countable set $\mathbb{Q}\cap [0,1]$ and applying countable additivity yieldsThus a dense set can be a null set, and a union of null sets indexed by an uncountable set can have positive Lebesgue measure. The distinction explains both the Dirichlet function example and why almost everywhere is weaker than everywhere.

For a regular outer measure and measurable $M$, the forward implication is countable additivity. For the reverse, choose a measurable hull of $A$ and intersect it with $M$ to obtain $A\subseteq B\subseteq M$ and $\mu (B)={\mu }^{\ast }(A)$. Measurability of $B$ splits $M\setminus A$ into $M\setminus B$ and $B\setminus A$, soThe assumed equality and finiteness force ${\mu }^{\ast }(B\setminus A)=0$. Every outer-measure-null set is measurable by Caratheodory measurability criterion, so $A=B\setminus (B\setminus A)$ is measurable. Finiteness prevents invalid subtraction of infinite masses.

On a measurable space $(X,\mathcal{F})$, a measure is a function $\mu :\mathcal{F}\to [0,\infty ]$ with $\mu (\varnothing )=0$ and countable additivity: for pairwise disjoint measurable sets $A_n$,Infinite size is permitted. Nonnegativity implies that if measurable sets satisfy $A\subseteq B$, then $\mu (A)\le \mu (B)$: decompose $B$ into $A$ and $B\setminus A$. For overlapping measurable sets, use countable subadditivity rather than adding their full sizes twice.

For example, counting measure gives $\mu (\{a,b,c\})=3$, while a Dirac measure ${\delta }_a$ gives that same set size $1$ if it contains $a$. Under Lebesgue measure, $[0,1/4]\cup [3/4,1]$ has size $1/4+1/4=1/2$. These are all measures, but they answer different questions: how many objects, whether a distinguished object is present, or how much length is occupied.

For measurable sets $A\subseteq B$, the disjoint union $B=A\bigsqcup (B\setminus A)$ and finite additivity give $\mu (B)=\mu (A)+\mu (B\setminus A)\ge \mu (A)$. This uses nonnegativity and is valid with infinite values; it does not subtract infinities. Monotonicity of a measure implies that increasing measurable sets have nondecreasing measures, but the equality of their limit with the measure of their union uses the stronger axiom of countable additivity.

For a profinite group $G$ and a complete discrete valuation ring $I$ with a continuous ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$-algebra structure, an $I$-valued measure is a bounded $I$-linear functional on continuous $I$-valued functions, with the uniform norm. Equivalently it assigns finitely additive values in $I$ to clopen sets. Locally constant functions are uniformly dense, so integration extends uniquely from finite sums. Countable additivity in the usual real-measure sense is not imposed. The coefficient ring may have infinite residue field and need not be compact.

A measurable space is a pair $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F})$ where $\mathcal{F}$ is a sigma-algebra of subsets of $\Omega$: it contains $\Omega$, is closed under complements relative to $\Omega$, and is closed under countable unions. A measure on it is a function $\mu :\mathcal{F}\to [0,\infty ]$ with $\mu (\varnothing )=0$ and countable additivity:whenever the measurable sets $A_n$ are pairwise disjoint. Infinite values are allowed. The triple $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mu )$ is a measure space.

Because $E\in \mathcal{F}$, the family ${\mathcal{F}}_E$ contains $E$. If $A\in {\mathcal{F}}_E$, then $E\setminus A=E\cap (\Omega \setminus A)$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}$ and is a subset of $E$, so it belongs to ${\mathcal{F}}_E$. If each $A_n\in {\mathcal{F}}_E$, their countable union belongs to $\mathcal{F}$ and remains a subset of $E$. Thus ${\mathcal{F}}_E$ is a sigma-algebra on $E$, with relative complements taken in $E$, not in $\Omega$.

Equivalently,the trace sigma-algebra on the measurable set $E$. The measurability of $E$ is what makes this equal to the family in the question.

The function $\nu$ takes values in $[0,\infty ]$ and has $\nu (\varnothing )=0$. For any pairwise disjoint $A_n\in {\mathcal{F}}_E$, countable additivity of $\mu$ givesTherefore $\nu$ is a measure on $(E,{\mathcal{F}}_E)$: it is the restriction of a measure to a measurable subset.

For the increasing family, define the measurable setsThey are pairwise disjoint, with $A_N={\bigcup }_{n=1}^N{D}_n$ and ${\bigcup }_n{A}_n={\bigcup }_n{D}_n$. By countable additivity,The nonnegative series is defined by its increasing partial-sum limit, so this proof also covers an infinite value. This is continuity from below of a measure.

For the decreasing family, put $C_n=B_1\setminus B_n$. These measurable sets increase, andSince $\mu (B_1)<\infty$, finite additivity gives legitimate finite subtractions:Apply the first result to $C_n$ and subtract from $\mu (B_1)$ to obtainThis is continuity from above of a measure. Its finiteness hypothesis matters: for Lebesgue measure and $B_n=[n,\infty )$, every $B_n$ has infinite measure but their intersection is empty. The proof must not subtract $\infty -\infty$.

A measurable space is a set $E$ together with a sigma-algebra $\mathcal{E}$ of its subsets: it contains $E$ and is closed under complements relative to $E$ and countable unions. A measure is a map $\mu :\mathcal{E}\to [0,\infty ]$ with $\mu (\varnothing )=0$ and countable additivity on disjoint measurable sets:A finite measure additionally satisfies $\mu (E)<\infty$.

A measure space consists of a set $\Omega$, a sigma-algebra $\mathcal{A}$ of subsets, and a countably additive map $\mu :\mathcal{A}\to [0,\infty ]$ with $\mu (\varnothing )=0$. A sigma-algebra contains $\Omega$ and is closed under complements and countable unions. Countable additivity means $\mu ({\bigcup }_n{A}_n)={\sum }_n\mu (A_n)$ for pairwise disjoint measurable sets. Such sets are called measurable; a real function is measurable when the inverse image of every Borel set belongs to $\mathcal{A}$.