Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Fubini's Theorem

  1. Oct 1, 2005 #1
    Does anyone know how to prove Fubini's Theorem? In multivariable calc., I just accepted it as true but never learned the formal proof. Any ideas?

    Thanks for your help.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2005 #2

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Same here. Everywhere I turn to, authors seem to flee this proof like the plague.
     
  4. Oct 1, 2005 #3

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, you can always try proving it yourself. :smile:
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2005
  5. Oct 1, 2005 #4

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I did. Tought I had it but turns out I had made a limit switching without realizing it. I don't know if the limit switching is valid, but it probably isn't, otherwise the proof is just so direct, authors wouldn't say its "above the level of this course".

    Actually it probably is valid, but it's proving its validity that's very hard!
     
  6. Oct 1, 2005 #5
    I'd like your opinion on this: How does one go about justifying switching limits? Could you maybe post a simple example that I could try applying to this?

    I appreciate it.
     
  7. Oct 1, 2005 #6

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It ought to be easier to prove

    [tex]
    \iint_R f = \int_a^b \int_c^d f(x, y) \, dy \, dx
    [/tex]

    than to prove

    [tex]
    \int_a^b \int_c^d f(x, y) \, dy \, dx
    = \int_c^d \int_a^b f(x, y) \, dx \, dy
    [/tex]
     
  8. Oct 1, 2005 #7
    So basically it comes down to writing down the definition of an integral (limit of a series) and rearranging, right?
     
  9. Oct 1, 2005 #8

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, it mainly involves doing a lot of putting bounds on things (just like any other "interesting" proof in analysis). By the way, what statement of Fubini's theorem are you trying to prove?
     
  10. Oct 1, 2005 #9

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I tought Fubini's theorem was just

    [tex]\int_a^b \int_c^d f(x, y) \, dy \, dx
    = \int_c^d \int_a^b f(x, y) \, dx \, dy[/tex]
     
  11. Oct 1, 2005 #10

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    With some conditions on f. :tongue2:

    (And that both of those iterated integrals are equal to the double integral)
     
  12. Oct 1, 2005 #11
    Hmm... Maybe it's time for something similar, but a bit simpler. Is the proof for the following in differential calc. similar to the proof of Fubini's Theorem?

    [tex]\frac{\partial^2\,f}{\partial x\,\partial y}=\frac{\partial^2\,f}{\partial y\,\partial x}[/tex]
     
  13. Oct 1, 2005 #12

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    For your personal amusement apmcavoy, this thm of diff. cal. is called Clairaut's Theorem (also sometimes called Schwartz's Theorem...but Schwartz already has his inequality, so let's be fair and give this one to Clairaut, shall we :P)
     
  14. Oct 1, 2005 #13
    lol. I am finding that my multivariable class was more and more useless as I encounter these theorems we never proved. Ahh, I hope these aren't expected until analysis :smile:
     
  15. Oct 2, 2005 #14
    Apmcavoy, do you know the proof of the Leibniz rule (differentiation under the integral sign)? From said proof is rather easy to obtain the statement wrote by Quasar.

    Put "Leibniz rule" in google and you will see it.

    Castilla.
     
  16. Oct 2, 2005 #15
    Yes I know it (worked through it on PF a few months back!) Which statement made by Quasar are you referring to?
     
  17. Oct 2, 2005 #16

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Could you post the link please? I can't find the thread.

    As for the statement, Castilla was probably refering to

    [tex]\int_a^b \int_c^d f(x, y) \, dy \, dx= \int_c^d \int_a^b f(x, y) \, dx \, dy[/tex]
     
  18. Oct 2, 2005 #17
    There are a few, but this was the one I could find:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36033
     
  19. Oct 2, 2005 #18


    This equation. If this is what you want to proof, it can be considered a corolary from Leibniz rule (differentiation under the integral sign).
     
  20. Oct 2, 2005 #19
    Hmm... Integration under the integral sign? You know what the thread on the Leibniz rule never explained: justification for switching limits. I'd like to know how to do this. I mean, I know that you can if the limits of integration are constants and the function is continuous, but that isn't really a proof.
     
  21. Oct 2, 2005 #20

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  22. Oct 2, 2005 #21
    Thanks quasar I hadn't seen that post before. That makes sense then how to prove Fubini's Theorem in a similar manner. I'm going to try writing it out and see what I get.

    Thanks again for the help :smile:
     
  23. Oct 2, 2005 #22
    Fact: the function with domain [tex] [a,b]x [c,d] [/tex] is continuous.

    Let be [tex]g(x,z) = \int_c^zf(x,y)dy.[/tex] Then, by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, [tex]\frac{\partial g}{\partial z}= f. [/tex]
    Let be
    [tex] G(z) = \int_a^bg(x,z)dx[/tex], so by differentiation under the integral sign
    [tex] G'(z) = \int_a^bf(x,z)dx[/tex].

    Assume that G' is continuous. Then

    [tex] \int_c^d\int_a^bf(x,z)dxdz = \int_c^dG' = G(d) - G(c) = G(d) =
    \int_a^b\int_c^df(x,y)dydx [/tex].
     
  24. Oct 2, 2005 #23
    Thank you very much Castilla. That wasn't quite what I was doing, so I must have been doing it incorrectly (or going off track).

    Thanks again.
     
  25. Oct 2, 2005 #24

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Pretty g.d. sweet. But I wouldn't have found that alone.
     
  26. Oct 2, 2005 #25

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Incidntally, it can be proven under other conditions (which is why I asked about the statement of the theorem):

    For example, when f is bounded, discontinuous on a set of measure 0, and any horizontal or vertical line passes through only finitely many points of discontinuity.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook