No label defined (Q4236483)

The paper is a continuation of the author's book [``Measure and integration. An advanced course in basic procedures and applications'' (1997; Zbl 0887.28001)] (cited below as MI). It falls into two parts. The main result of Part I (Theorem 4.6) establishes, in an abstract setting, a one-to-one correspondence between a class of inner premeasures and a class of outer premeasures in a set \(X\). It has origin in the existence of two versions of the traditional Riesz representation theorem on a (noncompact) locally compact space \(X\) in terms of Borel measures which differ in regularity conditions. We note that in Consequence 4.7 of Theorem 4.6 the condition ``\(\beta|{\mathfrak S}<\infty\)'' is missing. Part II is concerned with what the author calls the inner satellite \(\alpha_0\) of a function \(\alpha: {\mathfrak A}\to [0,\infty]\), where \({\mathfrak A}\) is a lattice in \(X\), that is, \(\alpha_0:{\mathfrak P}(X)\to [0,\infty]\) is defined by \(\alpha_0(M)= \sup\{\alpha(A): M\supset A\in{\mathfrak A}\) and \(\alpha(A)<\infty\}\) for \(M\subset X\). With \(\alpha^*(M):= \inf\{\alpha(A): M\subset A\in{\mathfrak A}\}\), the main result of this part (Theorem 6.3) then says that if \(A\) is a \(\sigma\)-algebra and \(\alpha\) is a measure, then \((\alpha^*)_0= (\alpha_0|{\mathfrak C})^*\), where \({\mathfrak C}\) denots the Carathéodory class of \(\alpha_0\) (which coincides with that of \(\alpha^*\)). The Carathéodory class plays, in fact, a central role in the paper, as well as in MI. As the author states in the introduction: ``The actual reason for the present paper is that its results are required for the evaluation, on the basis of MI, of those former extension and representation theories which operate on the level of functionals. This evaluation is in [\textit{H. König}, Arch. Math. 72, No. 3, 192-205 (1999; Zbl 0924.28007)]. Part I below is needed for the comparison with the traditional Daniell-Stone procedure, as presented for example in the books by K. Floret (1981) and M. Leinert (1995), and then Part II for the comparison with the books by N. Bourbaki (1965, 1967) and L. Schwartz (1973).'' Finally, let us recall that the notion of a transporter used both in the present paper and MI was considered earlier by \textit{B. J. Pettis} [Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., Sér. Sci. Math. Astron. Phys. 19, 563-568 (1971; Zbl 0243.28002)].