9

I am trying to prove the following statement:

"If $B\subset\mathbb{R}$ is a Borel set and $f:B\to\mathbb{R}$ is an increasing function then $f(B)$ is a Borel set"

but I have only managed to prove the easier statement

"If $B\subset\mathbb{R}$ is a Borel set and $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ is a strictly increasing function then $f(B)$ is a Borel set"

My proof (of the easier statement):

By Inverse function $f^{-1}:f(\mathbb{R})\to\mathbb{R}$ of a strictly increasing function $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ is continuous we have that $f^{-1}:f(\mathbb{R})\to\mathbb{R}$ is continuous so $(f^{-1})^{-1}(\mathbb{R})=f(\mathbb{R})$ is open hence Borel thus $f^{-1}$ is a continuous function defined on a Borel set so it is Borel measurable which implies that $(f^{-1})^{-1}(B)=f(B)$ is a Borel set, as desired. $\square$


I would like to prove the initial statement but I have been stuck for a while so I would appreciate an hint about how to tackle its proof, thanks.

lorenzo
  • 4,298

1 Answers1

7

Here is a self-contained proof. We first note that it suffices to prove:

Claim. Let $f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be non-decreasing. Then for each Borel set $B \subseteq \mathbb{R}$, the set $f(B)$ is also Borel.

To prove this, let $\mathcal{F}$ be the set of all Borel sets $B$ for which $f(B)$ is also Borel. Then we check the following properties of $\mathcal{F}$:

1. $\mathcal{F}$ contains any open intervals.

Indeed, let $I$ be an open interval, and consider any connected component $C$ of $\mathbb{R}\setminus f(I)$.1) We show that $C$ cannot be a singleton. Otherwise, write $C = \{y\}$. Then we can find sequences $(a_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ and $(b_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ in $I$ such that

\begin{gather*} f(a_1) < f(a_2) < \cdots < y < \cdots < f(b_2) < f(b_1), \\ \lim f(a_n) = y, \qquad \lim f(b_n) = y. \end{gather*}

This in particular forces that $a_1 < a_2 < \cdots < b_2 < b_1$, and so, both $a = \lim a_n$ and $b = \lim b_n$ exist in $I$ and $a \leq b$. Moreover, $y \leq f(a) \leq f(b) \leq y$, and so, $f(a) = f(b) = y$. This contradicts that $y$ lies in the complement of $f(I)$, and so, $C$ is not singleton as required.

Now this tells that $\mathbb{R}\setminus f(I)$ is a disjoint union of nondegenerate intervals, and since there are at most countably many such intervals, their union is a Borel set. Therefore $f(I)$ is also a Borel set.

2. If $A_1, A_2, \dots$ are in $\mathcal{F}$, then both $\cup_n A_n$ and $f(\cup_n A_n) = \cup_n f(A_n)$ are Borel sets, hence $\cup_n A_n \in \mathcal{F}$.

3. If $A \in \mathcal{F}$, then $\mathbb{R}\setminus A \in \mathcal{F}$.

Indeed, denote by $D$ the set of values in $\mathbb{R}$ which are attained by $f$ at two or more points, i.e.,

$$ D = \{y \in \mathbb{R} : \#f^{-1}(\{y\}) \geq 2. \} $$

For each $y \in D$ and for each $a, b \in f^{-1}(\{y\})$ with $a < b$, we find that $[a, b] \subseteq f^{-1}(\{y\})$. This tells that each $f^{-1}(\{y\})$ is a nondegenerate interval, and so, $D$ can contain at most countably many points. Then by noting that $f(A) \cap f(\mathbb{R}\setminus A) \subseteq D$, we have

$$ f(\mathbb{R})\setminus f(A) \subseteq f(\mathbb{R}\setminus A) \subseteq (f(\mathbb{R})\setminus f(A)) \cup D. $$

In particular, $f(\mathbb{R}\setminus A) = (f(\mathbb{R})\setminus f(A)) \cup \tilde{D}$ for some subset $\tilde{D}$ of $D$. Since all of $f(\mathbb{R})$, $f(A)$, and $\tilde{D}$ are Borel sets, $f(\mathbb{R}\setminus A)$ is also a Borel set and hence $\mathbb{R}\setminus A \in \mathcal{F}$ as desired.

Conclusion. The above observations tell that $\mathcal{F}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra containing all the open intervals, and hence, must contain any Borel sets. Therefore the proof is complete. $\square$


1) If you are not familiar with the notion of connect components, then here is an alternative way of explaining this for subsets of $\mathbb{R}$. Let $E \subseteq \mathbb{R}$, and define the relation $\sim$ on $E$ as follows:

  • For each $x, y \in E$, we write $x \sim y$ if and only if $\{tx + (1-t)y : t \in [0, 1]\} \subseteq E$.

In other words, $x \sim y$ if and only if either $x = y$ or the closed interval between $x$ and $y$ lie in $E$. Then it is not hard to check that

  1. $\sim$ is an equivalence relation on $\mathbb{R}$, and
  2. each equivalence class of $\sim$ is either a singleton or an interval.
Sangchul Lee
  • 181,930
  • thank you very much, I have a few questions about your proof; since I am not very familiar with topology could you please tell me why in point (1) you consider a "connected component"? What is it and what is the intuition behind this choice? Also, shouldn't the inequality in (1) be $f(a)\leq y\leq f(b)$? Also, in part (3) you say "For each $y\in D$ and for each $a,b\in f^{-1}({y})$ with $a<b$, we find that $[a,b]\subseteq f^{-1}({y})$": why is that? Thanks – lorenzo Aug 02 '21 at 14:07
  • 1
    @lorenzo, For (1), I added a brief explanation to my answer. The idea is that if $f$ is increasing and makes a jump at a point, then that jump will manifest as intervals in the complement $\mathbb{R}\setminus f(I)$. For instance, if we consider $f(x)=\operatorname{sgn}(x)$, then $$\mathbb{R}\setminus f((-1,1))=(-\infty,-1)\cup(-1,0)\cup(0,1)\cup(1,\infty),$$ and the part $(-1,0)\cup(0,1)$ corresponds to the jump of $\operatorname{sgn}(x)$ at $x=0$. – Sangchul Lee Aug 02 '21 at 17:54
  • 1
    @lorenzo, for (2), the inequality you mentioned is also true, but it alone does not nail down the values of $f(a)$ and $f(b)$. To explain why we expect $y\leq f(a)\leq f(b)\leq y$ to hold, the idea is that $C$ cannot be a singleton because $C$ corresponds to (at least part of) a jump of $f$, and the zero jump size will imply continuity, i.e., no jump. Now using $(a_n)$ and $(b_n)$ chosen as in the answer, note that $a_n \leq a \leq b \leq b_n$, and so, $f(a_n) \leq f(a) \leq f(b) \leq f(b_n)$. Then letting $n\to\infty$ and $\lim f(a_n)=\lim f(b_n) = y$ will give us the inequality. – Sangchul Lee Aug 02 '21 at 17:59
  • 1
    @lorenzo, Finally, the claim mentioned in (3) more or less tells that if you have $f(a) = f(b)$, then the monotonicity of $f$ forces that the graph of $f$ on the interval $[a, b]$ must be flat, i.e., $f(x) = f(a) = f(b)$ for all $x \in [a,b]$. This then forces that $[a,b]$ lies in the inverse image of ${y}$ under $f$. – Sangchul Lee Aug 02 '21 at 18:00
  • fantastic answer! Thank you very much! – lorenzo Aug 03 '21 at 14:37
  • @SangchulLee I am reading "Measure, Integration & Real Analysis" by Sheldon Axler. This exercise is Exercise 24 on p.40 in Exercises 2B in this book. Thank you very much for your elegant answer. – tchappy ha Mar 23 '23 at 07:46
  • @SangchulLee thanks for this. basic clarification -- in your first line you note that it suffices to prove that if $f$ is non-decreasing on the real line, then $f(B)$ is Borel. Is the idea that if we have an increasing function only defined on some $B$, then we can extend it to be increasing on all real numbers? Then if we can prove that the image of any Borel set is Borel, then we've proved our original claim? It seems you imply that if we have $f: B\to R$ we can extend it to be increasing over all real numbers, which I think is true but not entirely obvious to me. – Cole Jul 25 '24 at 04:51
  • @SangchulLee to follow up, I suppose that we could define $f^: R->R$ by $f^ (x) = f(x)$ if $x\in B$, then $f(x)=inf{f(y): y\in B, y>x$ for $x<sup(B)$ etc etc – Cole Jul 25 '24 at 05:04