- #1

- 39

- 5

Does $$\int_{t=0}^{\infty}f(t)dt=\int_{t=0}^{\infty}g(t)dt$$ imply $$f(t)=g(t)$$ ?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Ahmed Mehedi
- Start date

- #1

- 39

- 5

Does $$\int_{t=0}^{\infty}f(t)dt=\int_{t=0}^{\infty}g(t)dt$$ imply $$f(t)=g(t)$$ ?

- #2

- #3

- 20,027

- 11,399

How could that possibly be true?Does $$\int_{t=0}^{\infty}f(t)dt=\int_{t=0}^{\infty}g(t)dt$$ imply $$f(t)=g(t)$$ ?

- #4

etotheipi

$$

f(x) = \begin{cases}

0, & x< 0 \\

1, & 0\leq x\leq 1 \\

0, & 1< x

\end{cases}$$ and $$

g(x) = \begin{cases}

0, & x< 1 \\

1, & 1\leq x\leq 2 \\

0, & 2< x

\end{cases}$$

- #5

- #6

member 587159

For example @etotheipi gave two different functions.

However, you can also do the following: Consider an integrable function ##f## and change its value in one (or finitely many) points. Let the so obtained be function be ##g##. Then clearly ##f\neq g## yet ##\int f = \int g##.

For the advanced reader, you are asking if

$$R[0,\infty[ \to \mathbb{R}: f \mapsto \int_{0}^\infty f$$

is injective. This is a linear functional on the space of Riemann-integrable functions on ##[0, \infty[##, and a linear functional on an infinite dimensional vector space is never injective.

Note that some partial results do hold:

(1) If ##f \geq 0## and ##\int f = 0## then ##f = 0## almost everywhere.

(2) If ##f \geq 0## and ##f## is continuous with ##\int f =0##, then ##f=0## (everywhere).

- #7

- 20,027

- 11,399

Are you really asking that if:

$$\int_{t=0}^{\infty}f(t)dt= 0$$

Then ##f(t) = 0## everywhere?

- #8

etotheipi

I would suspect that if ##\int_{a}^{b}f(t)dt=\int_{a}^{b}g(t)dt##

- #9

- 20,027

- 11,399

I would suspect that if ##\int_{a}^{b}f(t)dt=\int_{a}^{b}g(t)dt##for allpossible ##a, b##, then you would be able to say ##f(t) = g(t)##. But that's quite different to having fixed limits.

If two continuous functions different at a single point, then they differ on an interval. Moreover, if ##f(x_0) > g(x_0)##, then ##f(x) > g(x)## on some interval containing ##x_0##.

This is needed to extract the Euler-Lagrange equations from the calculus of variations.

- #10

member 587159

I would suspect that if ##\int_{a}^{b}f(t)dt=\int_{a}^{b}g(t)dt##for allpossible ##a, b##, then you would be able to say ##f(t) = g(t)##. But that's quite different to having fixed limits.

This is not quite true (it's true if you ask that ##f,g## are continuous). If they are only Riemann-integrable, best you can get is that they are equal almost everywhere.

Riemann-integral does not see the behaviour at single points, so you can take the example I made earlier in post #6 to get ##\int_a^b f = \int_a^b g## for all ##a,b## yet ##f \neq g##.

- #11

- 39

- 5

Are you really asking that if:

$$\int_{t=0}^{\infty}f(t)dt= 0$$

Then ##f(t) = 0## everywhere?

I am very sorry that I can not make my message clear. To be specific my question goes as follows:

Let us consider the following Lagrangian in the context of an optimization problem:

$$L=B\int_{t=0}^{\infty}e^{-\beta t}\frac{c(t)^{1-\theta}}{1-\theta}dt+\lambda \left[ k(0)+\int_{t=0}^{\infty} e^{-R(t)}e^{(n+g)t}w(t)dt - \int_{t=0}^{\infty} e^{-R(t)}e^{(n+g)t}c(t)dt \right]$$

After taking the first partial derivative of the above Lagrangian with respect to c(t) (and setting it to zero as first order optimality condition) it is written that

$$Be^{-\beta t} c(t)^{-\theta}-\lambda e^{-R(t)}e^{(n+g)t}=0$$

It seems that they take the first partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to c(t) and simply ignore the dt from both sides.

How the second line follows from the first line? They said it can be proved using calculus of variation. But, how can I prove it?

- #12

- 39

- 5

I am very sorry that I can not make my message clear. To be specific my question goes as follows:

Let us consider the following Lagrangian in the context of an optimization problem:

$$L=B\int_{t=0}^{\infty}e^{-\beta t}\frac{c(t)^{1-\theta}}{1-\theta}dt+\lambda \left[ k(0)+\int_{t=0}^{\infty} e^{-R(t)}e^{(n+g)t}w(t)dt - \int_{t=0}^{\infty} e^{-R(t)}e^{(n+g)t}c(t)dt \right]$$

After taking the first partial derivative of the above Lagrangian with respect to c(t) (and setting it to zero as first order optimality condition) it is written that

$$Be^{-\beta t} c(t)^{-\theta}-\lambda e^{-R(t)}e^{(n+g)t}=0$$

It seems that they take the first partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to c(t) and simply ignore the dt from both sides.

How the second line follows from the first line? They said it can be proved using calculus of variation. But, how can I prove it?

@Math_QED @etotheipi

- #13

dRic2

Gold Member

- 866

- 229

If you want a quick recipe, a functional derivative like ##\frac {\delta L} {\delta g}## where ##L =\int h[g]## can be evaluated by trowing away the integral and calculating ##\frac {\partial h[g]} {\partial g}##. Ok don't hate me for this comment.

- #14

- 39

- 5

If you want a quick recipe, a functional derivative like ##\frac {\delta L} {\delta g}## where ##L =\int h[g]## can be evaluated by trowing away the integral and calculating ##\frac {\partial h[g]} {\partial g}##. Ok don't hate me for this comment.

May be you are right! Perhaps they were talking about functional derivative and not the partial one. Can you provide me any good quick read regarding functional derivatives?

- #15

etotheipi

I don't know if I can help from here on, I've only ever skimmed through the first chapter of a calculus of variations textbook.

- #16

- 39

- 5

I don't know if I can help from here on, I've only ever skimmed through the first chapter of a calculus of variations textbook.

HAHA ....... I am yet to see the textbook of calculus of variation ....... Let alone chapter one ......

- #17

dRic2

Gold Member

- 866

- 229

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with functional derivatives. I just worked out some tricks to evaluate them in case of need. All I know comes from pag 54-56 from Lanczos' book on analytical mechanics and from 5 pages of notes by a professor of mine.Can you provide me any good quick read regarding functional derivatives?

- #18

- 735

- 188

Given

$$\int_{0}^{\infty} f(t) dt = \int_{0}^{\infty} g(t) dt$$ the most we can get is :

$$

\int_{0}^{\infty} f(t) dt - \int_{0}^{\infty} g(t) dt = 0 $$

$$\lim_{x\to \infty} \int_{0}^{x} \left[f(t) -g(t) \right] dt = 0 $$

$$\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{d}{dx} \int_{0}^{x} \left[f(t) - g(t) \right] = 0$$

$$\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x) - g(x) = 0$$

That is to say, functions ##f## and ##g## converge to each other as they approach to infinity.

$$\int_{0}^{\infty} f(t) dt = \int_{0}^{\infty} g(t) dt$$ the most we can get is :

$$

\int_{0}^{\infty} f(t) dt - \int_{0}^{\infty} g(t) dt = 0 $$

$$\lim_{x\to \infty} \int_{0}^{x} \left[f(t) -g(t) \right] dt = 0 $$

$$\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{d}{dx} \int_{0}^{x} \left[f(t) - g(t) \right] = 0$$

$$\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x) - g(x) = 0$$

That is to say, functions ##f## and ##g## converge to each other as they approach to infinity.

Last edited:

- #19

- 39

- 5

Given

$$\int_{0}^{\infty} f(t) dt = \int_{0}^{\infty} g(t) dt$$ the most we can get is :

$$

\int_{0}^{\infty} f(t) dt - \int_{0}^{\infty} g(t) dt = 0 $$

$$\lim_{x\to \infty} \int_{0}^{x} \left[f(t) -g(t) \right] dt = 0 $$

$$\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{d}{dx} \int_{0}^{x} \left[f(t) - g(t) \right] = 0$$

$$\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x) - g(x) = 0$$

That is to say, functions ##f## and ##g## converge to each other as they approach to infinity.

A good interpretation!

- #20

member 587159

$$\int_{0}^{\infty} f(t) dt = \int_{0}^{\infty} g(t) dt$$ the most we can get is :

$$

\int_{0}^{\infty} f(t) dt - \int_{0}^{\infty} g(t) dt = 0 $$

$$\lim_{x\to \infty} \int_{0}^{x} \left[f(t) -g(t) \right] dt = 0 $$

$$\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{d}{dx} \int_{0}^{x} \left[f(t) - g(t) \right] = 0$$

$$\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x) - g(x) = 0$$

That is to say, functions ##f## and ##g## converge to each other as they approach to infinity.

This is false. Consider ##f=0## and $$g(x) = \begin{cases}1 \quad x \in \mathbb{N} \\ 0 \quad x \notin \mathbb{N}\end{cases}$$

Then $$\int_0^\infty f = 0 = \int_0^\infty g$$ yet $$\lim_{x \to \infty}[ f(x)-g(x)] = -\lim_{x \to \infty} g(x) $$ does not exist.

The flaw happens when you introduce the derivative.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #21

- 735

- 188

I assumed the functions to be continuous.This is false. Consider ##f=0## and $$g(x) = \begin{cases}1 \quad x \in \mathbb{N} \\ 0 \quad x \notin \mathbb{N}\end{cases}$$

Then $$\int_0^\infty f = 0 = \int_0^\infty g$$ yet $$\lim_{x \to \infty}[ f(x)-g(x)] = -\lim_{x \to \infty} g(x) $$ does not exist.

The flaw happens when you introduce the derivative.

- #22

member 587159

I assumed the functions to be continuous.

Even then you must justify switching the limits involved, which you didn't. I'm pretty sure the statement is even false for continuous functions.

- #23

- 20,027

- 11,399

It's still false. There are continuous functions that do not converge to ##0## as ##t \rightarrow \infty## yet the integral exists.I assumed the functions to be continuous.

It's a good exercise to find one.

- #24

- 735

- 188

We can do the switching when they are monotone.Even then you must justify switching the limits involved, which you didn't. I'm pretty sure the statement is even false for continuous functions.

- #25

member 587159

We can do the switching when they are monotone.

If you keep throwing in extra assumptions, eventually you will be right yes...

Share: