Lebesgue integral over the Riemann integral

In summary, the Lebesgue integral is better than the Riemann integral when it comes to the switching of the limit and integral sign. This is because we have the monotone convergence theorem and the dominated convergence theorem, which say that the switchiong is justified under very mild assumptions.
  • #1
symbol0
77
0
You always see in books that one advantage of the Lebesgue integral over the Riemann integral is that a sequence of continuous functions f_n does not have to converge unifomly to a function f to have:
integral of the limit of the sequence = the limit of the integrals of functions in the sequence

Can anybody give me an example where this equality fails using the Riemann integral, and does not fail using the Lebesgue integral?

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


The advantage of the Lebesgue integral over the Riemann integral concerning the switching of the limit and integral sign is that for Riemann, the only theorem we have is that for the switching to be justified, the sequence of function must converge uniformly. But with the Lebesgue point of view, we have also the monotone convergence theorem and the dominated convergence theorem, which say that the switchiong is justified under very mild assumptions.

Note that you will not find an example where the switching fails using the Riemann integral, and does not fail using the Lebesgue integral because if the Riemann integral exists, then the Lebesgue integral exists and is equal to it.
 
  • #3


Thanks quasar,
I don't think I understand completely.

Are you saying that the sequences for which the equality works/fails using the Lebesgue integral are the same sequences for which the equality works/fails correspondingly, using the Riemann integral?

If that's the case, can you give me a specific example where I can see how the Lebesgue integral gives me an advantage over the Riemann integral (regarding the switch of the limit and the integral).
 
  • #4


symbol0 said:
Thanks quasar,
I don't think I understand completely.

Are you saying that the sequences for which the equality works/fails using the Lebesgue integral are the same sequences for which the equality works/fails correspondingly, using the Riemann integral?
Granted that we are talking about sequences of Riemann-integrable functions then yes.

symbol0 said:
If that's the case, can you give me a specific example where I can see how the Lebesgue integral gives me an advantage over the Riemann integral (regarding the switch of the limit and the integral).
Try to prove that given any sequence of positive,increasing and converging Riemann-integrable functions {f_n}, we have

[tex]\lim_n\int_a^b f_n =\int_a^b \lim_nf_n[/tex]

Or that given any sequence of converging Riemann-integrable functions {f_n} with |f_n|<g for some integrable function g, we have

[tex]\lim_n\int_a^b f_n =\int_a^b \lim_nf_n[/tex]

From what I understand, people did not know of these results before Lebesgue's thesis. And it is them that drew attention to Lebesgue's construction as a worthy alternative to Riemann's definition of the integral.
 
  • #5


So then I guess that the answer to my original question (the example) is that the switch fails with the Riemann integral and does not fail with the Lebesgue integral for all those sequences of Riemann integrable functions where the limit of the sequence is not Riemann integrable, but it is Lebesgue integrable.

Say for instance a sequence of bounded continuous functions on [0,1] that converges to
f(x)= 0 if x is rational and 1 if x is irrational.
Then the switch would fail with the Riemann integral because f is not Riemann integrable, but the switch would not fail with the Lebesgue integral.

Right?
 
  • #6


symbol0 said:
So then I guess that the answer to my original question (the example) is that the switch fails with the Riemann integral and does not fail with the Lebesgue integral for all those sequences of Riemann integrable functions where the limit of the sequence is not Riemann integrable, but it is Lebesgue integrable.

Well, if you insist, but it seems weird to say that the switching fails in this case since the notion of integral for the limit function does not even make sense. A real example of the switching failing would be if all the [itex]\int f_n[/itex] exist and converge and [itex]\int \lim_nf_n[/itex] exists but [itex]\lim_n \int f_n \neq\int \lim_nf_n[/itex]

symbol0 said:
Say for instance a sequence of bounded continuous functions on [0,1] that converges to
f(x)= 0 if x is rational and 1 if x is irrational.
Then the switch would fail with the Riemann integral because f is not Riemann integrable, but the switch would not fail with the Lebesgue integral.

Right?

I don't know if there is such a sequence of continuous functions, but if you let {r_n} denote a sequence that takes all the rational values in [0,1] and then set f_n(x)=1 if x=r_i (i=1,...,n) and 0 otherwise, then all the f_n are integrable but the limit is your function f.
 
  • #7


Thanks quasar
 

1. What is the difference between the Lebesgue integral and the Riemann integral?

The Lebesgue integral is a generalized form of integration that extends the Riemann integral to a wider class of functions. It is defined using the concept of measure theory and allows for the integration of more complicated functions that the Riemann integral cannot handle.

2. How is the Lebesgue integral calculated?

The Lebesgue integral is calculated by dividing the function's domain into small intervals and then taking the limit as the size of the intervals approaches zero. This process allows for the integration of functions that are not continuous, as well as functions that do not have a well-defined antiderivative.

3. What are the advantages of using the Lebesgue integral over the Riemann integral?

One of the main advantages of the Lebesgue integral is its ability to integrate a wider class of functions, including non-continuous and unbounded functions. It also has a more intuitive definition and can be used to prove important theorems in analysis, such as the fundamental theorem of calculus.

4. Are there any drawbacks to using the Lebesgue integral?

One potential drawback of the Lebesgue integral is that it requires a strong understanding of measure theory, which can be more complex and abstract than the concepts used in the Riemann integral. Additionally, the Lebesgue integral can sometimes be more difficult to compute compared to the Riemann integral.

5. In what situations would it be necessary to use the Lebesgue integral instead of the Riemann integral?

The Lebesgue integral is necessary when dealing with functions that are not continuous or do not have a well-defined antiderivative. It is also useful in probability theory, where the concept of measure theory is essential. In general, the Lebesgue integral should be used when the Riemann integral is not sufficient to handle the function being integrated.

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
980
Replies
1
Views
814
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • Calculus
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top