Help with qual problem on Riemann-Stieltjes Integration

  • Thread starter Thread starter TopCat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a decreasing function f defined on the interval [0, ∞) and requires showing that the limit of xf(x) as x approaches infinity is zero, given that the integral of f over this interval is finite.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the applicability of integration by parts and the implications of the limit of f as x approaches infinity. There are attempts to establish a contradiction regarding the behavior of xf(x) and its relationship with the integral of f.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered nudges towards exploring contradictions and bounds related to the integral of f. There is recognition of the challenges in connecting the behavior of xf(x) with the properties of f, and multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of differentiability or continuity of f, which complicates the use of certain integration techniques. There is also a mention of constraints regarding the convergence of the integral of xf(x).

TopCat
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Let f:[0, ∞) → ℝ be a decreasing function. Assume that

|\int^{\infty}_{0}f(x)dx| < ∞

Show that

lim_{x→∞}xf(x) = 0.


Attempt:
By hypothesis f is integrable for every b>0, as is the function x, so that for every such b, xf(x) is integrable on [0,b]. From here I tried passing to sums by considering a partition P such that U(P,xf(x)) - L(P,xf(x)) < ε, but I'm probably barking up the wrong tree there. I also can't see a way to use integration by parts to generate an xf(x) term since I don't have differentiability or continuity of f.

I'm pretty much just lost and need a slight nudge in the right direction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, integration by parts can't help, for just the reason you mention. lim f(x) as x->infinity has to be zero, right? That should be easy to see. So you can assume lim f(x)>0. Prove it by contradiction. So suppose lim x->infinity x*f(x) is NOT zero. That means there is an e>0 such that for any N>0 there is c such that c*f(c)>e. That should be enough of a slight nudge to get you started.
 
Thanks! that was just what I needed.
 
I thought I was good, but I'm having trouble seeing where the contradiction lies. I expected that maybe I could choose N large so that f(x)<ε, yet x*f(x)>ε, but I can't see how will work. I know that ∫x*f(x) need not converge so there's nothing there. I also looked at the same N large under the same conditions to see if choosing a partition P such that U(P,x*f(x))-L(P,x*f(x))<ε might imply x*f(x)<ε, but that didn't work either. I must be making dunce move and missing something super obvious here. :(
 
Ok, pick a c such that c*f(c)>e. That means the integral of f(x) from 0 to c is greater than e, right? Now pick a c'>2c such that c'*f(c')>e. Can you get a lower bound for the integral from c to c' of f(x)?
 
Ah! Got it! I was completely missing out on the fact that f decreasing implies x*f(x) < ∫f dx. Kept focusing too hard on other irrelevant things. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K