Talk:Riesz–Markov–Kakutani representation theorem

I just changed the ordinal example

In the article it is said that if $X=[0,\Omega ]$ is the space of all ordinals less than or equal to the first uncountable ordinal $\Omega$ (nowerdays often called $\omega _{1}$ ), then there is a measure on the Borel sets of $X$ that assigns $1$ to a Borel set if that set is closed and unbounded (club-set for short)and zero otherwise. This is clearly not a measure, since there are Borel sets which contain a club-set but are not club themselves. For example the complement of a nonisolated point in $X$ is not closed (so no club-set) but it certainly contains a club-set as subset. So, I guess, what is meant is that the measure of a set is $1$ if $B$ contains a club-set as a subset, I changed it accordingly. --129.13.236.24 (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radon measures

The 'regular Borel measure' defined in this article is the same as the 'Radon measure' defined in the linked article (but 'regular' does not appear in Radon measure -- only 'locally finite', 'inner regular' and 'outer regular'.) Then later the notion of 'Radon measure' is mentioned in this article. Would it make more sense to simply refer to the definition of Radon measure instead of reproducing it here under another name? 130.88.16.76 (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbaki's measure & integration theory

In this article one reads: One approach to measure theory is to start with a Radon measure, defined as a positive linear functional on Cc(X). This is the way adopted by Bourbaki. I don't know about others, but concerning Bourbaki, this is not accurate. They (Bourbaki is a group) start with what may-be is called (by others) a complex Radon measure, defined as a continuous linear functional on Cc(X) which has to be considered in this context as a (complex) vector space equipped with a compatible topology - defined as a direct limit - this complicated detail may be replaced by a simpler ad hoc definition of continuity of a functional on Cc(X) which happens to be equivalent - it so happens that positive lin. funct. on this space are automatically continuous. It is only after the basics of such measures that positive measures are considered at some length in order to get their special properties and finally obtain the topology of convergence in the mean defined for all complex-valued functions on X, with respect to which the (Lebesgue-style) integral is a prolongation by continuity of the linear functional UKe-CH (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common name vs. article title

Textbooks and research articles in mathematics journals over the past 70 years usually refer to this theorem as the "Riesz representation theorem" and almost never refer to it as "Riesz–Markov–Kakutani representation theorem." For example: searching zbmath.org for "Riesz representation theorem" returns 423 results. A typical example of these is the textbook "Measure, integration and function spaces." The zbmath review by Klaus D. Schmidt says of Chapter 6: "It also contains the Riesz representation theorem for positive linear functionals on the space of all continuous functions on a locally compact Hausdorff space which have compact support."

Both this article and the article titled "Riesz representation theorem" should have a topic explaining the common usage of the names. 138.67.7.177 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]