- #1

- 39

- 5

## Main Question or Discussion Point

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

- 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

- 13,788

- 6,272

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

Gold Member

2019 Award

- 2,159

- 1,147

$$

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

Math_QED

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2019 Award

- 1,663

- 683

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

- 13,788

- 6,272

Are you really asking that if:

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

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

- #8

etotheipi

Gold Member

2019 Award

- 2,159

- 1,147

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

- #9

- 13,788

- 6,272

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

- #10

Math_QED

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2019 Award

- 1,663

- 683

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.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.

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

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

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

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

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

@Math_QED @etotheipiI 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?

- #13

dRic2

Gold Member

- 723

- 169

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

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?

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.

- #15

etotheipi

Gold Member

2019 Award

- 2,159

- 1,147

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

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

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.

- #17

dRic2

Gold Member

- 723

- 169

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

- 191

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

A good interpretation!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.

- #20

Math_QED

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2019 Award

- 1,663

- 683

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

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

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:

- #21

- 735

- 191

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

Math_QED

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2019 Award

- 1,663

- 683

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.I assumed the functions to be continuous.

- #23

- 13,788

- 6,272

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

- 191

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

Math_QED

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2019 Award

- 1,663

- 683

If you keep throwing in extra assumptions, eventually you will be right yes...We can do the switching when they are monotone.

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 735

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 908

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K