A question on the definability of convolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter zzzhhh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convolution
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the conditions under which the Lebesgue integral exists for the convolution of two functions as presented in Apostol's "Mathematical Analysis." It highlights that while the convolution is defined for Riemann integrable functions over the interval [a,b], the existence of the Lebesgue integral is not guaranteed for all x in that range. The author emphasizes that Riemann integrability ensures the product of two functions remains Riemann integrable, but questions arise regarding the integrability of the functions outside the specified intervals. The conversation also touches on the assumption that functions can be considered zero outside the interval, which simplifies the analysis. Ultimately, the discussion seeks clarity on the conditions that ensure the existence of the Lebesgue integral in this context.
zzzhhh
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
In Apostol's "Mathematical Analysis", Page 328 (see the image below and the underlined sentence),
f0n8gi.jpg

why does the Lebesgue integral (41) exist for
gif.gif
?[/URL]
The definition of convolution is as follows:
2b4rqr.jpg

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure if I understand your question. For that special case, the Lebesgue integral doesn't have to exist for all x \in \left[a,b\right], and that is precisely what the author says.
 
My question comes from the underlined sentence. That the convolution in (41) can be defined means the Lebesgue integral in (41) exists and the author asserts this integral exists for all x in [a,b] under the given condition. But I do not understand why this integral
gif.latex?\int_0^x&space;f(t)g(x&space;-&space;t)dt.gif
exists.
 

Attachments

  • gif.latex?\int_0^x&space;f(t)g(x&space;-&space;t)dt.gif
    gif.latex?\int_0^x&space;f(t)g(x&space;-&space;t)dt.gif
    754 bytes · Views: 415
What the author (Apostol) asserts is that, if f and g are Riemann integrable, then that convolution is well defined, for all x \in \left[a,b\right]. On the other hand, if the functions are Lebesgue integrable (and this include much less regular functions), then then their (Lebesgue) integral may not be defined. In fact, the author gives an example immediately after.
 
JSuarez said:
What the author (Apostol) asserts is that, if f and g are Riemann integrable, then that convolution is well defined, for all x \in \left[a,b\right]

My question is why this statement holds, not the statement on the other hand.
 
Because the product of two Riemann integrable functions is also (Riemann) integrable. This is a consequence of, for example, theorem 7.48 of Apostol's book.
 
But f and g are Riemann-integrable only on [a,b] under the given condition, which does not insure f(t) and g(x-t), and in turn their product, are Riemann-integrable on [0,x].
 
Note that x \in \left[a,b\right], then for a<0, there is no problem, because \left[0,x\right]\subseteq \left[a,b\right]; if a>0, you may always assume that the functions are 0 outside the interval.
 
JSuarez said:
if a>0, you may always assume that the functions are 0 outside the interval.
Why? Why can we assume the functions are 0 outside the interval ([a,b] or [0,x])?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K