>measure theory >mfw pls someone give the most rigorous

>>8677199
Like you gonna read it.

>>8677221

I fucking will, I want to obliterate this boring subject

>>8677199
>Here, take this set A.
>Here, take this function from the powerset A to the real numbers

>WOW OMG PLEASE STOP HOLY SHIT. THAT IS TOO HARD FOR ME.

implying you would

>>8677271

>reals

i only work on finite measures

>>8677199
Google measure theory terence tao.
You will find free textbook.

>>8677221
> Like you gonna read it.
Do you--like, you know dude--ever, like, you know man, ever say anything--like--positive? Like, anything? Like, even once in your--like--life, like, maybe?
Are you so incredibly bored that you need such senseless amusement?
I'm honest and sincere, so I'm sincerely interested in any thoughts you have about yourself and what you babble.

I think Bogachev's book is pretty good

File: teratoma.jpg (71KB, 570x380px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 570x380px

>measure theory
>can't just use a ruler
>mfw

>>8677539
I like this post.
>>8677573
looked it up. I want some clusterfuck a la Integration by Bourbaki

>>8677593

>just bee yourself

>>8677271
>powerset A
Are you retarded?

Only in the most trivial cases you can use the powerset.
If you want to define your borell measure on the reals you can not use the powerset.

>>8677199
Read Fremlin's Measure Theory.

>>8677573
Thumbs up for Bogachev's book

>>8679007
quick rundown on Bogacheffs?

>>8679035
They have psychic powers and rule France with an iron fist.

>>8678907
A measure is meant to assign a number to each subset of a set, therefore I talk of the power set.

You topologists are a bunch of fucking stuck up retards.

Oh wow! Your measure is only for the open sets! How fucking different wow man. You are so smart! WOW!

>>8679480
>to each subset of a set
Wrong.

If you want to do anything significant (aka. Borell measure) this is completly retarded.

You have to shrink the powerset to a sigma-Algebra which is a bit more sensical.

File: sad-pepe-640x480.jpg (29KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x480px

>>8679661
>mfw everything rigns a bell but can't properly grasp its beauty because I am a filthy engineer pleb and not a mathster race..

fuck man I know they talked about borell sets when we did stochastic pdes

>>8679681
Dont worry. I am also retarded and dont understand half of the stuff I need to know for my exam on monday.

>tfw integrating k-forms on manifolds

>>8679700
>k-forms

disgusting

>>8679700
do you write the same exam as me?

>>8677199
first chapter of kallenberg's probability book is decent, if a little terse

>>8679700
>Take partition of unity
>Sum over pullbacks, via chart maps, of the partition of unity maps on the k-form.
>Do usual lebesgue or riemann integral

so hard

>>8677593
>implying a topology isn't just a generalized collection of rulers

>>8679480
>Your measure is only for the open sets

this is also wrong. Closed sets are measurable too.