Let Y be a locally compact subspace of X; for every measure μ on X, ∣μY∣=∣μ∣Y.
Let f be a function in K+(Y) and ε any number >0; by definition, there exists a function g∈K(Y;C) such that ∣g∣≤f and ∣μY∣(f)≤∣μY(g)∣+ε. Denoting by f′ and g′ the functions obtained by extending f and g, respectively, to be 0 on X−Y, we have μY(g)=μ(g′) and, since ∣g′∣≤f′,
∣μ(g′)∣≤∣μ∣(∣g′∣)≤∣μ∣(f′)=∣μ∣Y(f),
whence ∣μY∣(f)≤∣μ∣Y(f)+ε and, since ε is arbitrary,
∣μY∣(f)≤∣μ∣Y(f).
On the other hand, let K be the support of f and let U be a compact neighborhood of K in X such that ∣μ∣(U−K)≤ε; by Urysohn's theorem, there exists a function f1∈K+(X), extending f, with support contained in U and such that ∥f1∥=∥f∥. There exists a function h1∈K(X;C) such that ∣h1∣≤f1 and ∣μ∣(f1)≤∣μ(h1)∣+ε. If h is the restriction of h1 to Y, then h∈K(Y;C), ∣h∣≤f and μ(h1)−μY(h)=μ(h1φU−K), therefore
∣μ(h1)−μY(h)∣≤∥f∥⋅∣μ∣(U−K)≤ε∥f∥;
moreover, we have similarly
∣μ∣(f1)−∣μ∣Y(f)=∣μ∣(f1φU−K)and∣∣μ∣(f1)−∣μ∣Y(f)∣∣≤ε∥f∥.
From this we infer that
∣μ∣Y(f)≤∣μY(h)∣+ε(1+2∥f∥)≤∣μY∣(f)+ε(1+2∥f∥)
and since ε is arbitrary, ∣μ∣Y(f)≤∣μY∣(f), which completes the proof.
Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.
Nothing.