Something a little odd - Lebesgue vs Riemann integral

If the Riemann integral diverges, then f is not Riemann integrable. Therefore, the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals don't agree on any bounded interval. Furthermore, the Riemann integral can be defined as the limit of a sequence of Lebesgue integrals, so if the Riemann integral diverges, then the Lebesgue integral must also diverge.
  • #1
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
4,807
32
In the Riemann theory for a function f defined on all of R, we define its improper integral over R as the sum of two limits:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx = \lim_{a\rightarrow -\infty}\int_{a}^0f(x)dx+\lim_{b\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{0}^b f(x)dx[/tex]

and in general, this is not equal to

[tex]\lim_{L\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-L}^L f(x)dx[/tex]

For instance, for f(x)=sin(x), neither of the two limits above exists, but the limit below is 0.

But what does Lebesgue says? We know that given f:R-->R integrable, the function [tex]\nu:\mathfrak{L}_{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}[/tex] defined by

[tex]\nu(E)=\int_Ef(x)dx[/tex]

is a (signed) measure. Signed measures enjoy the same continuity properties as finite and positive measures. That is, if E_n is an increasing sequence of measurable sets, then

[tex]\nu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^{+\infty}E_n\right)=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\nu(E_n)[/tex]

In particular, for E_n = ]-n,n[ and the measure defined above,

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-n}^nf(x)dx[/tex]

(Since U E_n=R)

What's up with that? (as in : any comments welcome)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
quasar987 said:
In the Riemann theory for a function f defined on all of R, we define its improper integral over R as the sum of two limits:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx = \lim_{a\rightarrow -\infty}\int_{a}^0f(x)dx+\lim_{b\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{0}^b f(x)dx[/tex]

and in general, this is not equal to

[tex]\lim_{L\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-L}^L f(x)dx[/tex]

For instance, for f(x)=sin(x), neither of the two limits above exists, but the limit below is 0.

But what does Lebesgue says? We know that given f:R-->R integrable, the function [tex]\nu:\mathfrak{L}_{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}[/tex] defined by

[tex]\nu(E)=\int_Ef(x)dx[/tex]

is a (signed) measure. Signed measures enjoy the same continuity properties as finite and positive measures. That is, is E_n is an increasing sequence of measurable sets, then

[tex]\nu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^{+\infty}E_n\right)=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\nu(E_n)[/tex]

In particular, for E_n = ]-n,n[ and the measure defined above,

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-n}^nf(x)dx[/tex]

(Since U E_n=R)

What's up with that? (as in : any comments welcome)
With that choice of E_n, you are doing, effectively,
[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{-n}^{n} f(x) dx[/itex]
the "Cauchy Principal Value", not the general Lebesque integral.
 
  • #3
Explain please!

What would the general Lebesgue integral be?
 
  • #4
i seem to recall the lebesgue integral subtracts the negative part of the integral from the positive one (i.e. does the integrals of max(f,0) and min(f,0) separately) so you would simply get a non integrable function for sin since both integrals are infinite. but i have not looked at this in 40 years.
 
  • #5
It would be using a sequence of measurable sets that was NOT symmetric as you have it.

Just after I read your question, I then asked myself the question you are probably thinking of: in order to be integrable, it shouldn't MATTER which measurable sets we choose! That's true but it is also true of Riemann integrable functions (in terms of intervals rather than measurable sets).

Note that
[tex]\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty}\int_{-L}^L f(x)dx= \lim_{a\rightarrow -\infty}\int_a^0 f(x)dx \lim_{b\rightarrow\infty}\int_0^L f(x)dx[/tex]
is true if all the integrals exist.

In terms of the Lebesque integral, just as for the Riemann integral, even if
[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-n}^nf(x)dx[/tex]
exists the "more general" integral,, using other measurable sets may not exist.
 
  • #6
mathwonk spotted my error: sin(x) is not Lebesgue integrable because |sinx| isn't.

It would be nice then, if we could show that if f 's improper Riemann integral diverges, then it isn't Lebesgue integrable. This way, we then never encounter the humbling situation

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx \ \ \ \mbox{(Riemann)} \neq\lim_{L\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-L}^L f(x)dx \ \ \ \mbox{(Riemann)} = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx \ \ \ \mbox{(Lebesgue)}[/tex]

Bed.
 
  • #7
I don't understand your dilemma. If a function is Riemann integrable, then the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals agree on any bounded interval, right? And isn't it a straightforward proof that

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(x) \, dx = \lim_{
\substack{a \rightarrow -\infty \\ b \rightarrow +\infty }}
\int_a^b f(x) \, dx[/tex]

whenever either side exists? (for both kinds of integrals)
 

What is the difference between Lebesgue and Riemann integrals?

The main difference between Lebesgue and Riemann integrals lies in their approach to defining and evaluating integrals. Riemann integration is based on partitioning the interval of integration and approximating the function using rectangular areas, while Lebesgue integration is based on partitioning the range of the function and approximating the measure of the set under the curve. This allows Lebesgue integration to handle a wider range of functions and provide more precise results.

Which integral is more commonly used in practical applications?

In practical applications, Riemann integration is more commonly used as it is easier to understand and calculate. It is also the basis for the fundamental theorem of calculus, making it more widely applicable in fields such as engineering and physics.

Can any function be integrated using both Lebesgue and Riemann integrals?

Yes, both Lebesgue and Riemann integrals can be used to integrate any function that is considered to be integrable. However, the results may differ due to the different approaches used in each integral.

What are the advantages of using Lebesgue integration over Riemann integration?

Lebesgue integration has several advantages over Riemann integration. It can handle a wider range of functions, including non-continuous and unbounded functions. It also provides a more general and rigorous definition of integration, allowing for more precise results. Additionally, it can be extended to higher dimensions and is closely related to other important mathematical concepts such as measure theory and functional analysis.

Are there any disadvantages to using Lebesgue integration?

One potential disadvantage of Lebesgue integration is its complexity and difficulty to understand, especially for beginners. It also requires a solid understanding of measure theory to fully grasp its concepts and applications. Additionally, it may be more computationally intensive compared to Riemann integration in certain cases.

Similar threads

  • Calculus
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
966
Replies
1
Views
931
Replies
2
Views
876
  • Calculus
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
743
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top