Image transformations
on locally compact spaces
Gunnar Taraldsen

arXiv:1706.08170v1 [] 25 Jun 2017

Trondheim, Norway. e-mail: Gunnar.Taraldsen@ntnu.no
Abstract: An image is here defined to be a set which is either open or closed in X
and an image transformation q is structure preserving in the following sense: It corresponds to an algebra homorphism q : A(a) → A(q(a)) for each singly generated algebra A(a) = {φ(a) | φ ∈ C(R, R), a ∈ C(X, R)}. We extend parts of J.F. Aarnes’ results on quasi-measures, -states, -homomorphisms, and image-transformations from
the setting compact Hausdorff spaces to locally compact Hausdorff spaces. 1 2

Contents
1 Introduction and Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Integration and the Riesz Representation Theorem. . . . . . . .
3 Image-Transformations and the Aarnes Factorization Theorem.
4 Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Comments on Previous Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

1
3
6
11
12
13

1. Introduction and Definitions.
In the C ∗ -algebraic formulation of quantum mechanics the bounded real observables are
identified with selfadjoint elements in a C ∗ -algebra A. A physical state can be considered
to be [1, p.602], [10] an assignment of a probability measure µa on the spectrum of each
selfadjoint a. The measure µa is interpreted as the probability distribution which models
the outcome in an experiment where the observable a is measured. This interpretation
forces the consistency condition µφ(a) = µa ◦ φ−1 , since a measurement of a is also a
measurement of any observable φ(a) being a function of a. The function φ is assumed to
be continuous since the observable φ(a) is supposed to be an element in the C ∗ -algebra.
The end result is that a physical state may be identified with the functional µ given by
µ(a) := µa (id), which fullfils the fundamental equation
Z
µ(φ(a)) = µa (φ) := φ(t) µa (dt).
(1)
Let A(a) = {φ(a) | φ ∈ C(R, R)} be the unital norm-closed real algebra of selfadjoint
elements generated by a. A functional defined on the selfadjoint elements of a C ∗ -algebra
1

AMS Subject Classification (1991): 46J10, 28A25, 28C15, 46L30, 81P10.
Keywords: Banach algebras of continuous functions, Integration with respect to measures and other
set functions, Set functions and measures on topological spaces, States, Logical foundations of quantum
mechanics.
1
2

Taraldsen/Image transformations

2

which is linear on each A(a) is said to be quasi-linear. It follows from the fundamental
equation that µ is a quasi-linear functional.
In 1991 [2] Aarnes presented the first example of a proper quasi-linear functional. The
idea is to extend the Riesz representation theorem from integrals to quasi-integrals to
obtain a correspondence between quasi-integrals and quasi-measures. Let A = A(X) be
the class of sets in a Hausdorff space X which are either open or closed. A (compactregular, additive, normalized) quasi-measure µ is a real valued function defined on A with
properties (i) µ(X) = 1, (ii) µ is additive (on disjoints); µ(A ⊎ B) = µ(A) + µ(B), and
(iii) µ is compact-regular: The measure of an open set U equals the supremum of the
measures of compact sets K contained in U. A quasi-measure is said to be simple if it
only takes the values 0 and 1. Integration with respect to a quasi-measure µ is defined
as in [2, p.46]: If a : X → R is continuous, then µ ◦ a−1 is the restrictionR of a measure
µa on R. This gives a consistent family of measures and ρ(a) := µ(a) := t µa (dt) is a
quasi-integral: (i) ρ : Cb (X) → R; (ii) ρ : A(a) → R is linear; (iii) a ≥ 0 gives ρ(a) ≥ 0;
(iv) ρ(1) = 1; (v) ρ(a) = supk≤a ρ(k). ρ is simple if it is multiplicative on each A(a).
A random variable X is a measurable function from a probability space Ω to a measurable space E. The set function X −1 pulls measurable sets in E back to measurable sets
in Ω in such a way that the measure P on Ω is pushed to the measure PX := P ◦ X −1 on
E. The fundamental change of variable formula
Z
Z
E(φ(X)) := φ(X(ω)) P (dω) = φ(x) PX (dx)
(2)
shows that the expectation value of any (measurable) function of X may be computed
from the distribution PX of X. One may replace the set function X −1 with a set function
ψ with properties: (i) ψ(E) = Ω, (ii) ψ(Ac ) = ψ(A)c , (iii) ψ(A1 ∪ A2 ∪ · · · ) = ψ(A1 ) ∪
ψ(A2 ) ∪ · · · , and the measure P is again pushed to a measure ψ ∗ P := P ◦ ψ on E with a
integration result as above.
These results can be generalized to the setting of quasi-measures. The family of measurable sets is replaced by the family A of images. An image is a set which is open or
closed. The measurable functions are replaced by continuous functions, and the result
µ(φ(a)) = µa (φ) is the generalization of the change of variable formula. The set functions ψ are replaced by image-transformations q. An image-transformation q from X to
Y takes an image A in X to an image q(A) in Y , and has properties (i) q(X) = Y , (ii)
q(U) is open when U is open, (iii) q is additive; q(A ⊎ B) = q(A) ⊎ q(B), and (iv) q is
compact-regular: Given an open set U and a compact set K ⊂ q(U), there is a compact
set L ⊂ U such that K ⊂ q(L). A quasi-measure µ on Y is pulled to a quasi-measure
q ∗ µ := µ ◦ q on X. The integral q(a) of a continuous bounded function a on X is the
continuous bounded function q(a) on Y given by q(a)(y) :=(q ∗ δy )(a). The integral with
respect to an image-transformation is a (compact-regular) quasi-homomorphism from
Cb (X) to Cb (Y ): (i) q : A(a) → A(q(a)) is an algebra homomorphism for each a, and
(ii) q(a)(y) = supk q(k)(y), where k ≤ a has compact support. The integral above gives
1-1 correspondence between image-transformations and quasi-homomorphisms for locally
compact normal spaces. The generalization of the change of variable formula is
(q ∗ µ)(a) = µ(q(a)).

(3)

Taraldsen/Image transformations

3

The main result in this work is the characterization of all image-transformations in terms
of the Aarnes factorization theorem [3]: To any image-transformation q from X to Y there
exists a continuous function w : Y → X ∗ such that q = w −1 ◦ [∗]. The [∗] is the canonical
image-transformation from X to X ∗ given by A 7→ [∗](A) := A∗ :={σ ∈ X ∗ | σ(A) = 1}.
The space X ∗ is the set of simple quasi-measures σ (σ(A) equals 0 or 1) equipped with the
weak topology: σ 7→ σ(a) is continuous for all bounded continuous a. In terms of quasihomomorphisms the factorization is as above with (w −1 a)(y) = a(w(y)), and ([∗]b)(σ) =
σ(b) is the quasi-linear Gelfand transformation. This means in particular that [∗] is a
quasi-homomorphism from Cb (X) to Cb (X ∗ ), and w −1 is a (quasi-)homomorphism from
Cb (X ∗ ) to Cb (Y ). The function w is unique and given by w = q ∗ ◦ ιY , where ιY : Y → Y ∗
is the inclusion which maps y to δy , and q ∗ maps Y ∗ into X ∗ . The factorization result is
summarized by the following commutative diagrams:
∗
Cb (X
O )

(q ∗ )−1

❏

[∗]

❏

w −1

❏

❏

Cb (X)

/ Cb (Y ∗ )

q

(q ∗ )−1

∗
A(X
O )

■

ι−1

❏%  Y
/ Cb (Y )

[∗]

A(X)

■

/ A(Y ∗ )

w −1

■

■
q

ι−1

■$  Y
/ A(Y )

X ∗a❉o❉

q∗

YO ∗

❉❉ w
❉❉
❉❉

ιY

Y

As an indication of another possible application of this theory we quote Aarnes [3, p.1]:
Once defined, image-transformations take on a life of their own. In some sense they seem
to be better vehicles for the litteral transfering of an “image” or a message than ordinary
functions, since they allow for the possibility that images of “small” sets will vanish, i.e.
equal the empty set.
In the following we include normalization, compact-regularity and additivity in the definitions of quasi-measures, quasi-integrals, image-transformations, and quasi-homomorphisms
in order to simplify the language. We follow the notational conventions: K, L, M are compact sets; F, G, H are closed sets; U, V, W are open sets; A, B, C are images; A = A(X) is
the set of images in a Hausdorff space X; k, l, m are real valued continuous functions with
compact support; a, b, c are real valued bounded continuous functions; and Cb = Cb (X)
is the set of real valued bounded continuous functions on X.
The first version of this work was a result of a seminar based on [3] in the spring
of 1995. We acknowledge comments from Andenæs, Knudsen, Rustad, and Aarnes who
participated in the seminar. The results here corresponds to generalizations of the first
part of [3] and are approximately unchanged from the seminar, but the organization of
the proofs is different. Rustad [9] refers to an earlier version of this work. Aarnes and
Grubb [5] treat image transformations in completely regular spaces and their results
complements the results in the following.
2. Integration and the Riesz Representation Theorem.
The aim in this section is to give the ingredients in the proof of the Riesz representation
theorem.
Theorem 2.1. Let X be a locally compact normal space. A one-one correspondence
between quasi-measures µ and quasi-integrals ρ on Cb is given by
Z
ρ(a) = a(x)µ(dx), µ(U) = sup ρ(k).
k≤U

Taraldsen/Image transformations

4

The simple quasi-measures corresponds to the simple quasi-integrals.
We start with the development of an integration theory based on quasi-measures in a
Hausdorff space. Some properties of quasi-measures are summarized by: A quasi-measure
is monotone: A ⊂ B
⇒
µ(A) ≤ µ(B). It is continuous in the following sense:
Uλ ↑ U ⇒ µ(Uλ ) ↑ µ(U), and Fλ ↓ F ⇒ µ(Fλ ) ↓ µ(F ). If X is locally compact, then
µ(U) = sup{µ(V ) | V = K ⊂ U}. The proof of these statements are similar to the proof
of the corresponding statements for image-transformations. The main difference between
a measure and a quasi-measure is that the latter is not defined on an algebra of sets: The
union and intersection of two images need not be an image. In certain cases it turns out
that quasi-measures may be identified with measures, and in particular
Proposition 1. A quasi-measure µ on R is the restriction of a unique Borel measure ν.
Proof. Put F (t) := µ(−∞, t]. F is right continuous F (t) = limti ↓t µ(−∞, ti ] since µ is
continuous. Monotonity of µ ensures that F is the distribution function of a unique Borel
measure ν. Any open set is the disjoint union of a countable family of open intervalls, so
the restriction claim follows from
ν(a, b) = lim ν(a, bi ] = lim F (bi ) − F (a) = lim µ(−∞, bi ] − µ(−∞, a]
bi ↑b

bi ↑b

bi ↑b

= lim µ(−∞, bi ) − µ(−∞, a] = µ(−∞, b) − µ(−∞, a] = µ(a, b).
bi ↑b

This Proposition is a special case of a more general recent result [11, p.4]: Every
Baire quasi-measure on a Tychonoff space with Lebesgue covering dimension ≤ 1 is the
restriction of a finitely additive Baire measure.
Let µ be a quasi-measure on X. If f : X → Y is continuous, then f −1 : A(Y ) → A(X)
is an image-transformation. It follows in particular that µ ◦ f −1 is a quasi-measure on
Y , as will be proven in the next section. The particular case Y = R together with the
previous Proposition gives us integration:
Definition 2.1. Let µa be the extension of µ ◦ a−1 to a Borel measure on R. The integral
µ(a) of a with respect to µ is
Z
Z
µ(a) := a(x) µ(dx) := t µa (dt) := µa (id).
We remark that this definition is consistent with the conventional for ordinary measures
due to the change of variable formula. Borel measures on the real line are uniquely given
by their values on open sets, so the family {µa } is a consistent family of measures:
µφ(a) (U) = µ((φ(a))−1 (U)) = µa ◦ φ−1 (U).
This gives that a quasi-measure on a Hausdorff space X gives a quasi-linear functional:
Z
Z
Z
−1
µ(φ(a)) = t µφ(a) (dt) = t µa ◦ φ (dt) = φ(s) µa (ds) = µa (φ).
The following Staircase Lemma is fundamental.

Taraldsen/Image transformations

5

Lemma 2.1. Let a ≤ b. For each δ > 0 we have the decomposition a = a1 + · · · + an ,
b = b1 + · · · + bn , ai ∈ A(a) ∩ A(ai + bi ), bi ∈ A(b) ∩ A(ai + bi ), and ai ≤ bi + δ/n.
Proof. [2, p.54] Choose a constant M such that ã := a + M, b̃ := b + M + δ obeys 0 ≤ ã ≤
b̃ − δ. Choose 0 = β0 < · · · < βn = β := b̃ , βi+1 − βi < δ, and define


x ≤ βi−1
 0 x≤0
 0
φ(x) := x 0 ≤ x ≤ β ,
φi (x) := x − βi−1 βi−1 ≤ x ≤ βi .


β x≥β
βi − βi−1 x ≥ βi
P
With ai := φi (ã)
−
M/n,
b
:=
φ
(
b̃)
−
(M
+
δ)/n,
and
the
observation
φ
=
i
i
i φi , we
P
P
conclude a = i ai , b = i bi , and ai ∈ A(a), bi ∈ A(b). We prove ai , bi ∈ A(ai + bi ), or
equivalently ãi := φi (ã), b̃i := φi (b̃) ∈ A(ãi + b̃i ). From ã ≤ b̃ − δ we conclude b̃i (x) = βi −
βi−1 when ãi (x) > 0. This gives ãi ·(βi −βi−1 −b̃i ) = 0, ãi , βi −βi−1 −b̃i ∈ A(ãi −βi +βi−1 +b̃i ),
and finally ãi , b̃i ∈ A(ãi + b̃i ).
Proposition 2. If ρ : Cb (X) → R is positive and quasi-linear, then a ≤ b ⇒ ρ(a) ≤ ρ(b),
and |ρ(a) − ρ(b)| ≤ ρ(1X ) ka − bk.
P
P
Proof. The staircase Lemma gives ρ(a) = i ρ(ai ) ≤ δρ(1X ) + i ρ(bi ) = δρ(1X ) + ρ(b)
from which we conclude ρ(a) ≤ ρ(b). a ≤ b + ka − bk gives ρ[a] ≤ ρ[b] + ρ[1X ] ka − bk and
a switch of b and a gives |ρ[a] − ρ[b]| ≤ ρ[1X ] ka − bk.
It follows in particular that a quasi-integral is monotone and continuous. In [2] it is
proven that the integral with respect to a quasi-measure on a compact Hausdorff space
is a quasi-linear functional. The following Proposition is a generalization to the case of
locally compact Hausdorff spaces.
Proposition 3. Let µ be a quasi-measure on a locally compact Hausdorff space. The
quasi-integral with respect to µ is a quasi-integral, and the change of variable identity
µ(φ(a)) = µa (φ)
is valid for all continuous φ : R → R. The quasi-integral from a simple quasi-measure is
a simple quasi-integral.
Proof. (i) The identity was proven above for a general Hausdorff space. Every element in
A(a) is on the form φ(a), so linearity on A(a) follows from the above identity and linearity of µa . Positivity follows from the change of variable identity applied to the function
φ(t) = t2 . Finally µ(1) = µ(1R (a)) = µa (1R ) = 1.
−1
−1
(ii) If aλ ↑ a, then µ ◦ a−1
λ (t, ∞) ↑ µ ◦ a (t, ∞) from the continuity of µ and aλ (t, ∞) ↑
−1
a (t, ∞). Helly’s second theorem [8, p.53] applied to the distribution functions F (t) := µ◦
a−1 (−∞, t] and Fλ (t) := µ ◦ a−1
λ (−∞, t] gives µ(aλ ) ↑ µ(a).
(iii) Now we need local compactness. The set Λ :={k | k  X} is directed by the conventional ≤ for real-valued functions. Given a ∈ Cb (X) it follows that ak := a · k ↑ a, when
X is locally compact. This, together with (ii), imply the regularity µ(a) = supk≤a µ(k).
(iv) If µ = σ is simple, then
σa = δσ(a)
(4)
since σa = δz is a simple Borel measure, and σ(a) = σa (id) = z. Multiplicativity follows
from σ(φ(a)) = σa (φ) = φ(σ(a)) applied to the function φ = φ1 φ2 .

Taraldsen/Image transformations

6

In the above we proved quasi-linearity and normality (aλ ↑ a ⇒ µ(aλ ) ↑ µ(a)) in
the case of a quasi-measure on a general Hausdorff space. This monotone convergence
theorem for nets holds in a general Hausdorff space for a general quasi-integral ρ due to
compact-regularity: Let k  a with ρ[a] ≤ ρ[k] + ǫ, which is possible due to regularity.
Monotone convergence aλ ↑ a gives uniform convergence on supp k (Dini’s Lemma), and
then a λk such that k ≤ aλ + ǫ whenever λ ≥ λk . Quasi-linearity and monotonity give
ρ[a] ≤ ρ[aλ ] + 2ǫ if λ ≥ λk , which proves that ρ Ris normal.
R
If K ≤ a ≤ U, then µ(K) ≤ µ ◦ a−1 {1} = {1} t µa (dt) ≤ µ(a) = (0,1] t µa (dt) ≤
R
1 µa (dt) = µ ◦ a−1 (0, 1] ≤ µ(U). If X is locally compact, this gives
(0,1]
µ(U) = sup µ(k),
kU

µ(K) = inf µ(k).
K≤k

(5)

This gives in particular that the integrals corresponding to different quasi-measures are
different, and that the quasi-measure is determined by its corresponding integral as stated
in the Riesz representation theorem. We will now sketch the proof of the second part of
the Riesz representation theorem. Let a quasi-integral ρ : Cb (X) → R be given. Define
µ(U) := supkU ρ(k). It follows that µ is additive and can be extended to A by µ(F ) := 1−
µ(F c ). The regularity gives µ(U) = supa≤U ρ(a), and therefore µ(F ) = inf F ≤a ρ(a), which
gives additivity on the closed sets from normality. Monotonity of ρ gives that U ⊂ F
implies µ(U) ≤ µ(F ). Normality and Urysohn gives F ≤ a ≤ U from which µ(F ) ≤ µ(U)
follows. The set function µ is therefore additive and monotone. Regularity follows from
consideration of k ≤ supp k ≤ V ≤ K = V ≤ U, so µ is a quasi-measure. We prove
ρ(a) = µ(a). The representation
R theorem applied to C(Sp a) gives a Borel measure νa
determined by φ 7→ ρ[φ(a)] = φ(t) νa (dt). The claim follows if we prove νa (α, β) =
µa (α, β) for an arbitrary intervall (α, β). Let

n(t − α)
α ≤ t < α + 1/n



1
α + 1/n ≤ t < β − 1/n
φn (t) :=
,
−n(t − β) β − 1/n ≤ t < β



0
otherwise
so φn ↑ (α, β) and φn (a) ≤ U := a−1 (α, β). The monotone convergence theorem gives
νa (α, β) = lim ρ(φn (a)) and from µa (α, β) = supk≤U ρ(k) we conclude µa = νa . Finally we
prove that µ is simple if ρ is a simple quasi-integral. From ρ(φ(a)) = φ(ρ(a)) we conclude
µa = δρ(a) . Let K be compact with µ(K) > 0. From the regularity of µ we can find k and
U with K  k  U and µ(U) ≤ µ(K) + ǫ. From 0 < µ(K) ≤ µ(k −1 {1}) = 1 ≤ µ(U) ≤
µ(K) + ǫ, we conclude µ(K) = 1. From this and regularity it follow that µ is simple.
3. Image-Transformations and the Aarnes Factorization Theorem.
Proposition 4. If q is an image-transformation, then
(i) q(Ac ) = q(A)c ; (ii) A ⊂ B ⇒ q(A) ⊂ q(B); (iii) A∩B = ∅ ⇒ q(A)∩q(B) = ∅;
[
(iv) q(U) =
q(K); (v) Uλ ↑ U ⇒ q(Uλ ) ↑ q(U).
K⊂U

Taraldsen/Image transformations

7

Proof. (i) Y =q(A∪Ac )=q(A)⊎q(Ac ). (ii) and (iv) Consider F ⊂ U, so q(U) =
Sq(F ⊎(U ∩
c
c
F ))=q(F ) ∪ q(U ∩ F ) ⊃ q(F ). Since compacts are closed we find q(U) ⊃ K⊂U q(K).
Let y ∈ q(U). Since {y} is compact, the regularity gives a K ⊂ U with y ∈ q(K) and
(iv) follows. U ⊂ V and (iv) gives q(U) ⊂ q(V ). U ⊂ F gives q(F ) = q(U ⊎ (F ∩
U c ))=q(U) ∪ q(F ∩ U c ) ⊃ q(U), and finally F ⊂ G gives q(F c ) ⊃ q(Gc ) and q(F ) ⊂ q(G)
from (i). (iii) Because of additivity it is sufficient to consider the case U ∩ F = ∅, but then
q(U)⊂q(F c )=q(F )c , so q(U) ∩ q(F ) = ∅. (v) Monotonity gives ∪λ q(Uλ )⊂q(U), so only ⊃
remains. Let y ∈ q(U). Regularity gives a compact K ⊂ U = ∪λ Uλ with y ∈ q(K), but
then K ⊂ Uλ1 ∪ · · · ∪ Uλn ⊂ Uλ̂ . We conclude y ∈ q(Uλ̂ ) from monotonity.
The image-transformations are arrows in a category Image with objects A(X). The
identity arrow id : A(X) → A(X) is an image-transformation and:
Proposition 5. The composition of two image-transformations is an image-transformation.
Proof. Let q : A(X) → A(Y ) and p : A(Y ) → A(Z) be image-transformations. p ◦ q :
A(X) → A(Z) is well defined, and: p ◦ q(X) = p(Y ) = Z; p ◦ q(U) = p(q(U)open ) =
p(q(U))open ; and p ◦ q(A ⊎ B) = p(q(A) ⊎ q(B)) = p(q(A)) ⊎ p(q(B)). It remains to prove
regularity. Assume K ⊂ p ◦ q(U). q(U) is open, so the regularity of p gives L ⊂ q(U)
such that K ⊂ p(L). The regularity of q gives M ⊂ U such that L ⊂ q(M). We conclude
K ⊂ p(L) ⊂ p(q(M)) from the monotonity of p.
Let X ∧ denote the set of functions σ : Cb (X) → R with the property σ(φ(a)) = φ(σ(a)).
In the proof of the quasi-multiplicativity of the quasi-integral from a simple quasi-measure
we proved that X ∗ ⊂ X ∧ . We identify X with a subset of X ∗ by the injection x 7→ δx . A
more abstract characterization of X as a subset of X ∗ is given by
Proposition 6. If µ ∈ X ∗ is subadditive on open sets; µ(U ∪ V ) ≤ µ(U) + µ(V ), then
µ = δx . In particular R∗ ≃ R.
Proof. The family Fµ :={F | µ(F ) = 1} is closed under intersection from complementation of the subadditivity on open sets. The continuity of µ gives measure one to the
set F := ∩G∈Fµ G, and in particular F 6= ∅. Assume that F contains two different points
x, y. The additivity contradicts µ{x} = µ{y} = 1, so we can assume µ{y} = 0. From
µ{y} = inf y∈U µ(U) it follows that there exists an open set U ∋ y with µ(U) = 0. Then
U c ∈ Fµ , which contradicts y ∈ F . We have proven µ{x} = 1. The claim µ = δx follows.
Since µ ∈ R∗ is the restriction of a Borel measure, it is subadditive on open sets.
Proposition 7. The spectrum of a is Sp a = a(X) = X ∗ (a) = X ∧ (a).
Proof. We define Sp a = a(X) in agreement with the more general C ∗ definition. Assume
σ ∈ X ∧ . We prove σ(a) ∈ Sp a by a contradiction argument. Assume σ[a] 6∈ Sp a.
Urysohn’s Lemma gives Sp a  φ  {σ(a)}c , and 0 = φ(σ(a)) = σ(φ(a)) = σ(1X ) = 1
is a contradiction. The inclusion X ⊂ X ∗ ⊂ X ∧ together with σ(a) ∈ Sp a gives Sp a =
a(X) = X ∗ (a) = X ∧ (a). Below we identify X ∧ with a compact Hausdorff space, and the
continuity of σ 7→ σ(a) gives that X ∧ (a) = X ∧ (a) is compact.
Each Sp a is Q
a compact Hausdorff space and Tychonoff gives us the compact Hausdorff
product space a∈Cb (X) Sp a, which is the family of real valued functions ψ with ψ(a) ∈

Taraldsen/Image transformations

Sp a and initial topology from the functions ψ 7→ ψ(a). This gives the inclusions
Y
X ⊂ X∗ ⊂ X∧ ⊂
Sp a,

8

(6)

a∈Cb (X)

and corresponding relative topologies on X, X ∗ , and X ∧ . The original topology on X
equals the relative topology on X if X is a Tychonoff space, and in particular if X is a
locally compact Hausdorff space. X ∧ is compact since it is closed: σ[φ(a)] = lim σλ [φ(a)] =
φ(lim σλ [a]) = φ(σ[a]). X ∗ is a Hausdorff space as a subset of a Hausdorff space. It is to
be expected that X ∗ is locally compact when X is locally compact, but this is an open
question.
Proposition 8. Let X be a locally compact Hausdorff space. The canonical imagetransformation [∗] : A(X) → A(X ∗) given by
[∗](A) := A∗ :={σ ∈ X ∗ | σ(A) = 1}
is an image-transformation.
Proof. Elements Sin X ∗ are quasi-integrals, so U ∗ = {σ | σ(U) = 1} = {σ | ∃a ≤
U σ(a) > 0} = a≤U {σ | σ(a) > 0} is open, and F ∗ = {σ | σ(F ) = 0}c = {σ | σ(F c ) =
1}c = ((F c )∗ )c is closed. Together with X ∗ = {σ | σ(X) = 1} we have verified the first
two axioms. Additivity follows from (F ⊎ G)∗ = {σ | 1 = σ(F ) + σ(G)} = F ∗ ⊎ G∗ . Put
of σ and local compactness gives
Oc (U) :={V | U ⊃ V is compact}. Compact-regularity
S
∗
∗
U = {σ | ∃V ∈ Oc (U) σ(V ) = 1} = V ∈Oc (U ) V , since [∗] is monotone. Let K ⊂ U ∗ .
Since Oc (U) is closed under unions, the above gives V ∈ Oc (U) with K ⊂ V ∗ , and L = V
gives K ⊂ L∗ , so [∗] is regular.
Proposition 9. Let X and Y be Hausdorff spaces. If f : Y → X is continuous, then
f −1 : A(X) → A(Y ) is an image-transformation.
Proof. Only the regularity needs a proof. If K ⊂ f −1 (U), then L = f (K) ⊂ U, and
K ⊂ f −1 (L).
The special case X = R of the above Proposition was used when we defined integration.
It turns out that the two above examples of image-transformations covers all cases, in
the sense that all image-transformation are on the form w −1 ◦ [∗] for some continuous
w : Y → X ∗ . We need some other aspects of the theory in order to prove this. Our main
motivation for the study of image-transformations is the following result.
Proposition 10. Let q be an image-transformation from X to Y . Any quasi-measure µ
on Y is pulled back to a quasi-measure q ∗ µ := µ ◦ q on X. The adjoint q ∗ maps Y ∗ into
X ∗ . The adjoint map is anti-multiplicative: (p ◦ q)∗ = q ∗ ◦ p∗ .
Proof. ν := q ∗ µ is clearly additive: ν(A ⊎ B) = µ(q(A) ⊎ q(B)) = ν(A) + ν(B). K ⊂
U ⇒ µ(q(K)) ≤ µ(q(U)), so regularity will follow from µ(q(U)) ≤ supK⊂U µ(q(K)). Let
L ⊂ q(U). Since µ is regular we are left with the proof of µ(L) ≤ supK⊂U µ(q(K)). q
is regular, so there is a compact K ⊂ U with L ⊂ q(K). The monotonity of µ gives
µ(L) ≤ µ(q(K)).
q ∗ (Y ∗ ) ⊂ X ∗ follows from (i) σ(q(X)) = σ(Y ) = 1 and (ii) σ(q(A)) ∈ {0, 1}. The final
claim is (p ◦ q)∗ µ(A) = µ ◦ p ◦ q(A) = q ∗ (p∗ µ)(A).

Taraldsen/Image transformations

9

Integration with respect to a quasi-measure gives a quasi-integral. One may also integrate with respect to an image-transformation, and the result is a quasi-homomorphism.
If a 7→ r(a)(y) is positive and quasi-linear for each y, then a 7→ r(a) is monotone and
kr(a) − r(b)k ≤ kr(1X )k ka − bk. A quasi-homomorphism is therefore monotone and
continuous. If r(φ(a)) = φ(r(a)) for all continuous φ : R → R, then clearly axiom (i) is
satisfied. The condition r(φ(a)) = φ(r(a)) is also necessary, from uniform approximation
of φ with polynomials.
Proposition 11. Let q be an image-transformation from a locally compact Hausdorff
space X to a Hausdorff space Y . The integral q(a) defined by q(a)(y) := rq (a)(y) :=(q ∗ δy )(a)
is a quasi-homomorphism from Cb (X) to Cb (Y ), and q ◦ a−1 = q(a)−1 . If µ is a quasimeasure on Y , then (q ∗ µ)(a) = µ(q(a)). If q and p are composable image-transformations,
then rq◦p = rq ◦ rp .
Proof. Recall that σa = δσ(a) holds for a simple quasi-measure σ. The equality q ◦
a−1 = q(a)−1 follows from the equivalence of the following statements: q[a](y) ∈ A;
1 = δq[a](y) (A) = δ[q∗ δy ](a) (A) = (q ∗ δy )a (A) = q ∗ δy ◦ a−1 (A);
y ∈ q(a−1 (A)). This
proves continuity of y 7→ q(a)(y) from the case A = U. The case A = (−∞, − kak) ∪
(kak , ∞) gives q(a)−1 (A) = q ◦ a−1 (A) = q(∅) = ∅, so kq(a)k ≤ kak. So far we have
proven that q : Cb (X) → Cb (Y ) is well defined. The property q(φ(a)) = φ(q(a)) follows from q(φ(a))(y) = (q ∗ δy )(φ(a)) = (q ∗ δy )a (φ) = δ(q∗ δy )(a) (φ) = φ(q(a)(y)), which
gives that q : A(a) → A(q(a)) is a surjective algebra homomorphism. We prove q(a)(y) =
supk≤a q(k)(y). Quasi-linearity gives ≥. Assume q(a)(y) ∈ U, or equivalently y ∈ q(a−1 (U)).
The claim follows if we can find k ≤ a with y ∈ q(k −1 (U)). The regularity of q gives
K ⊂ a−1 (U) with y ∈ q(K). Urysohn gives us l with K ≤ l ≤ X. With k := al, we
conclude k ≤ a, and K ⊂ k −1 (k(K)) = k −1 (a(K)) ⊂ k −1 (U). This gives y ∈ q(k −1 (U)).
Let µ be a quasi-measure on Y . Since q(a)−1 = q ◦ a−1 , we get µq(a) = (µ ◦ q)a , and
the change of variable formula µ(q(a)) = (q ∗ µ)(a) follows. If q, p are composable, then
q(p(a))(z) = (q ∗ δz )(p(a)) = (δz ◦ q)p(a) (id) = (δz ◦ q ◦ p)a (id) = [(q ◦ p)∗ δz ](a).
It should be observed that a 7→ q(a)(y) is a simple quasi-integral for each y. An
alternative proof of the regularity claim for a 7→ q(a) follows from the corresponding
statement for quasi-integrals. The special case µ = δy in the change of variable formula
µ(q(a)) = (q ∗ µ)(a) gives back the definition q(a)(y) = (q ∗ δy )(a).
Theorem 3.1. Let X be a locally compact Hausdorff space and let Y be a Hausdorff
space. There is 1-1 correspondence between image-transformations q : A(X) → A(Y ) and
continuous functions w : Y → X ∗ given by q = w −1 ◦ [∗] and w = q ∗ ◦ ιY , with ιY (y) := δy .
Proof. We prove that w := q ∗ ◦ ιY is continuous when q is an image-transformation. Fix
a ∈ Cb (X). It is sufficient to prove continuity of y 7→ w(y)(a) = q ∗ ◦ιY (y)(a) = (q ∗ δy )(a) =
q(a)(y), but this follows since q(a) ∈ Cb (Y ). Equality q = w −1 ◦ [∗] follows from the
following equivalent statements:
y ∈ q(U); 1 = δy (q(U)); w(y) = (q ∗ ◦ ιY )(y) = q ∗ δy ∈ U ∗ ; y ∈ w −1 ([∗](U)).
Let w : Y → X ∗ be continuous. Since composition of image-transformations produce
image-transformations, it follows that q := w −1 ◦ [∗] is an image-transformation. Equality

Taraldsen/Image transformations

10

w = q ∗ ◦ ιY follows by inspection of:
1 = (q ∗ ◦ ιY (y))(A) = δy (q(A)); y ∈ q(A) = w −1 (A∗ ); w(y)(A) = 1.

Continuity of w = q ∗ ◦ ιY follows also from continuity of q ∗ and ιY , which follows easily
by consideration of convergent nets in Y ∗ respectively Y . The proof of the remaining
statements in the commutative diagrams in the introduction is now rather straightforward, and left to the reader.
If q is an image-transformation and K ≤ a ≤ U, then K ⊂ a−1 {1} ⊂ a−1 (0, ∞) ⊂ U,
so q(K) ⊂ q(a)−1 {1} ⊂ q(a)−1 (0, ∞) ⊂ q(U). When X is locally compact, Urysohn gives
us
[
[
[
q(k)−1 (0, ∞).
(7)
q(k)−1 {1} =
q(U) =
q(K) =
K⊂U

kU

kU

The above indicates a 1-1 correspondence between image-transformations and quasihomomorphisms.
Theorem 3.2. Let X be a locally compact normal space. If r : Cb (X) → Cb (Y ) is a quasihomomorphism, then there exists a unique image-transformation q such that r(a) = q(a).
S
Proof. Put q(U) := kU r(k)−1 (0, ∞). From
↑ a with l  U and the monotone
S al := al−1
convergence theorem, we conclude q(U) = a≤U r(a) (0, ∞).
We prove additivity q(U ⊎ V ) = q(U) ⊎ q(V ) on open sets: a ≤ U and b ≤ V give
ab = 0, a, b ∈ A(a − b), 0 = r(ab) = r(a)q(b), r(a)−1 (0, ∞) ∩ r(b)−1 (0, ∞) = ∅, and finally
q(U) ∩ q(V ) = ∅. ⊃ follows from monotonity on open sets. We prove ⊂: Let y ∈ q(U ⊎ V ).
Then there exists c ≤ U ∪ V with r(c)(y) > 0. It follows that c = a + b with a ≤ U and
b ≤ V . From a, b ∈ A(a − b) it follows that r(a)(y) + r(b)(y) = r(c)(y) > 0, r(a)(y) > 0
or r(b)(y) > 0, and finally y ∈ q(U) ∪ q(V ).
q(X) = Y : Let y ∈ Y . The regularity gives 1 = r[1X ](y) = supa≤X r[a](y) so there exists
a ≤ X such that r[a](y) > 0. Since q is additive
on open sets we can extend q to A
T
by q(F ) = q(F c )c . It follows that q(F ) = a≥F r(a)−1 {1}. This, and normality, proves
additivity on closed sets.
It is clear that q is monotone on open sets and on closed sets. Monotonity of r gives
that U ⊂ F implies q(U) ⊂ q(F ). Normality and Urysohn gives F ≤ a ≤ U from which
q(F ) ⊂ q(U) follows. The set function q is therefore additive and monotone. Regularity
follows from consideration of k ≤ supp k ≤ V ≤ K = V ≤ U, so q is an imagetransformation.
We prove r(a)(y) = q(a)(y): The map a 7→ r(a)(y) = σ(a) defines a simple quasi-integral
σ with a corresponding simple quasi-measure also denoted by σ. Equality σ = q ∗ δy follows
from equivalence of the following statements:
1 = σ(U) = sup σ(k); ∃k  U r(k)(y) > 0; y ∈ q(U); 1 = δy (q(U)).
kU

Taraldsen/Image transformations

11

4. Examples.
4.1. The Aarnes Measure on the Square.
The following example is abstracted from Aarnes [2]. A set A in the unit square X = [0, 1]2
is solid if A and its complement Ac are both connected. Let ∂X denote the border of X.
Put µ(A) = 1 if A contains the border or if A intersects both the border and {(1/2, 1/2)},
and put µ(A) = 0 otherwise. This defines a 0-1 valued set function µ on the class of solid
sets in X. If F is closed and connected in X, then F c is a countable disjoint union of
open solid sets U1 , U2 , . . ., and we extend µ by µ(F ) := 1 − µ(U1 ) − µ(U2 ) − · · · . The set
function is extended to the class C0 of disjoint finite unions of connected closed sets by
µ(F1 ⊎ · · · ⊎ Fn ) = µ(F1 ) + · · · + µ(Fn ). If U is open, µ(U) is defined to be the supremum
of µ(K) for K ⊂ U, K in C0 . Finally µ(U c ) := 1 − µ(U) extends µ to the class A of sets
which are open or closed. The set function µ is a proper quasi-measure since it is not
subadditive. We refer to this quasi-measure as the Aarnes measure on the square.
4.2. A Non-Linear Integral.
Let a be the “pyramidal” [2, p.65] function on X whose graph is given by the four planes
which contain the point (1/2, 1/2, 1) in R3 and respectively the four sides of ∂X. In
particular a−1 ({0}) = ∂X which has Aarnes measure µ(∂X) = 1. This gives µa = δ0 , and
µ(a) = 0.
Let the graph of b ≥ 0 be given by the plane containing F = {(t, s, 0) | 0 ≤ t ≤ 1, 0 ≤
s ≤ 1/2}, and the plane containing the line segments {(t, 1/2, 0) | 0 ≤ t ≤ 1} and
{(t, 1, 1) | 0 ≤ t ≤ 1}. Since b = 0 on F , and µ(F ) = 1, it follows that µ(b) = 1. Let G be
the closed triangle in X with corners at (0, 1), (1/2, 1/2), (1, 1). The function a + b equals
1 on G, and µ(G) = 1, so the quasi-integral µ is nonlinear
1 = µ(a + b) 6= µ(a) + µ(b) = 0 + 0 = 0.

(8)

4.3. The 3-point Quasi-Measure and Quasi-Measures in the Plane.
Consider again the unit square X. A (normalized!) quasi-measure µ is parliamentary
[7] if µ(A) 6= 1/2 for all A. An example is given by the ordinary 3 point measure
µp,q,r = (δp + δq + δr )/3. A simple quasi-measure µ̃ is defined on solid sets K by µ̃(K) =
1(1/2,1] (µ(K)) and extended to A as in 4.1. The 3-point quasi-measure is µ̃p,q,r . It follows
easily that the 3-point quasi-measure is not a measure. Let µ̃np,q,r be the 3-point quasimeasure on Xn :=[−n, n]2 , let ιn be the natural injection of Xn into the plane, and conclude that µn := µ̃np,q,r ◦ιn −1 is a quasi-measure on the plane. Define µ∞ (A) := lim µn (A) for
all images A in the plane. The set function µ∞ is additive, but not compact-regular. This
example shows that non-regular quasi-measures arise quite naturally. There is a Riesz repnext a continuous fn : X → R2
resentation theorem also for such measures [6]. Consider
P
with fn (X) = [−1/4, 1/4]2 + {n, 0}, and put ν(A) := n≥1 µ̃p,q,r ◦ fn −1 (A)/2n . It follows
that ν is a quasi-measure in the plane which
can
P takes all values in [0, 1]. This example
P
be generalized to the statement that A 7→ n pn νn (A) is a quasi-measure if n pn = 1,
pn ≥ 0, and each νn is a quasi-measure.
4.4. Image-Transformations.
Let σ be a simple quasi-measure on X. An image-transformation q [3, p.10-11] from X
to Y is defined by q(A) = Y if σ(A) = 1 and q(A) = ∅ if σ(A) = 0. Let Y be a subset of
X ∗ , let w : Y → X ∗ be the inclusion map, and conclude that q = w −1 ◦ [∗] is an imagetransformation. Observe in particular that we may choose a finite Y . More examples

Taraldsen/Image transformations

12

may be constructed and investigated by continuous parametrizations w of simple quasimeasures in X ∗ .
5. Comments on Previous Results.
In [2] Aarnes establishes a Riesz representation theorem for quasi-states in terms of
quasi-measures on compact Hausdorff spaces. This has been generalized to the case of a
locally compact Hausdorff space X in two different directions. Aarnes [4] arrives at quasimeasures which are compact-regular, but not additive, by consideration of the one point
compactification of X. Boardman [6] obtains a representation theorem for quasi-linear integrals on Cb (X) in terms of quasi-measures which are additive, but not compact-regular.
We introduced quasi-measures which are additive and compact-regular. Integration with
respect to a quasi-measure µ is defined as in [2, p.46]: If a : RX → R is continuous, then
µ ◦ a−1 is the restriction of a measure µa on R, and µ(a) := tµa (dt) is the integral. A
novelty in our work is the simplified proof of the quasi-linearity of a 7→ µ(a), which avoids
the consideration of the Riemann-Stieltjes integral [2, p.46-52]. We remark also that this
method of integration fails in Boardman’s more general case. Our proof of the correspondence between image-transformations and quasi-homomorphisms is different from
the proof by Aarnes. Aarnes [2, p.13] used the fact that all homorphisms are on the form
a 7→ a ◦ w in the case of compact Hausdorff spaces, but this is not available for locally
compact spaces. Differences like this are generically found on comparison with [2] which
deals only with the compact case.

Taraldsen/Image transformations

13

References
[1] J.F. Aarnes. Quasi-states on C ∗ -algebras. Trans. of the American Math. Soc., 149,
1970.
[2] J.F. Aarnes. Quasi-states and quasi-measures. Adv. in Math., 86(1):41–67, 1991.
[3] J.F. Aarnes. Image transformations, attractors, and invariant non-subadditive measures. preprint Mathematics Trondheim, 2:1–28, 1994.
[4] J.F. Aarnes. Quasi-measures in locally compact spaces. preprint Mathematics Trondheim, 4:1–43, 1995.
[5] J.F. Aarnes and D.J. Grubb. Quasi-measures and image transformations on completely regular spaces. Topology and its Applications, 135:33–46, 2004.
[6] J.P. Boardman. Quasi-measures on completely regular spaces. Rocky Mountain J.
Math., 27(2):447–470, 1997.
[7] F.F. Knudsen. Topology and the construction of extreme quasi-meaures. Advances
in mathematics, 120, 1996.
[8] J. Lamperti. Probability. Benjamin, 1966.
[9] A.B. Rustad. Unbounded quasi-integrals. Proceedings of the American Mathematical
Society, 129(1):165–172, 2001.
[10] I. Segal. Postulates for general quantum mechanics. Ann. of Math., 48(2), 1947.
[11] D. Shakhmatov. Linearity of quasi-states on commutative C ∗ -algebras of stable rank
1. preprint, 1995.

