The (sub/super)additivity assertion of Choquet

  • Heinz KönigEmail author


The assertion in question comes from the short final section in Theory of capacities of Choquet (1953/54), in connection with his prototype of the subsequent Choquet integral. The problem was whether and when this operation is additive. Choquet had the much more abstract idea that all functionals in a certain wide class must be subadditive, and similarly for superadditivity. His treatment of this point was more like an outline, and his proof limited to a rather narrow special case. Thus the proper context and scope of the assertion has remained open. In this paper we present a counterexample which shows that the initial context has to be modified, and then in a new context we prove a comprehensive theorem which fulfils all the needs that have turned up so far.


(sub/super)modular and (sub/super)additive functionals convex functions Choquet integral Stonean function classes Stonean and truncable functionals Daniell–Stone and Riesz representation theorems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    R. C. Bassanezi and G. H. Greco, Sull’additività dell’integrale, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 72 (1984), 249–275.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Choquet, Theory of capacities, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 5 (1953/54), 131–295.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Denneberg, Non-Additive Measure and Integration, Kluwer, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. H. Greco, Sulla rappresentazione di funzionali mediante integrali, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 66 (1982), 21–42.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood and G. Pόlya, Inequalities, 2nd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, 1952.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Kindler, A Mazur–Orlicz theorem for submodular set functions, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 120 (1986), 533–564.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    H. König, Measure and Integration: An Advanced Course in Basic Procedures and Applications, Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    H. König, Measure and integration: Integral representations of isotone functionals, Ann. Univ. Sarav. Ser. Math. 9 (1998), 123–153.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    H. König, Measure and integration: An attempt at uniéd systematization, Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste, to appear. Preprint under koenig/.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    H. Lebesgue, Sur une généralisation de l’intégrale définie, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 132 (1901), 1025–1027 and 332 (2001), 85–90.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Schmeidler, Integral representation without additivity, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 97 (1986), 255–261.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    F. Topsøe, On construction of measures, in: Proc. Conf. Topology and Measure (Zinnowitz, 1974), Part 2, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Univ., Greifswald, 1978, 343–381.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät für Mathematik und InformatikUniversität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations