How Does Function Behavior in Intersection Impact Integrals in Rectangles?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Buri
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded Integral Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of a bounded function defined on rectangles in R^n, specifically focusing on a theorem related to integrals over the intersection of two rectangles, Q and Q'. Participants are exploring the implications of the function vanishing outside the intersection and its effects on the integrals over the rectangles.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the interpretation of the theorem, specifically whether the function must be zero throughout the intersection or just at some points, expressing confusion about the implications for the theorem's validity.
  • Another participant clarifies that the function is indeed zero outside the intersection, suggesting that the integral of the function is determined solely by its values within the intersection.
  • A participant raises a concern about the phrasing in the theorem, questioning why it states that the function vanishes at some points in a rectangle R that is not a subset of the intersection, rather than all points.
  • There is a discussion about the infimum of the function over the rectangle R and its implications for the integral, with participants considering the conditions under which the infimum could be less than or equal to zero.
  • Another participant agrees with the previous points, indicating that only rectangles along the boundary of Q could have an infimum less than zero, while others should have it equal to zero.
  • A later reply asserts that the original statement about the function vanishing outside the intersection is being misinterpreted, emphasizing that it is zero outside the intersection and potentially non-zero inside.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the theorem, particularly regarding the behavior of the function in relation to the intersection of the rectangles. There is no consensus on the implications of the function vanishing at certain points versus being zero throughout the intersection.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity regarding the definitions and conditions of the theorem, particularly concerning the behavior of the function in different regions of the rectangles.

Buri
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
I don't fully understand this theorem:

Let Q and Q' be two rectangles in R^n. If F: R^n -> R is a bounded function that vanishes outside Q intersect Q', then integral of f over q is equal to the integral of f over Q'.

When it says that the function vanishes outside of Q intersect Q', does it mean its always zero in the intersection, or simply at some points? See if it only vanishes at some points I don't see how the theorem could be true. The proof considers the special case when Q is a subset of Q' and the partitions Q'. Then it creates a refinement of that partition by adjoining the endpoint of Q into the partition of Q'. However, it goes on to say that if R is a sub rectangle that is not contained in Q then f vanishes at SOME point in R. But I understood that it vanishes in the intersection and thus should completely vanishes on R.

What am I not understanding?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
f is 0 outside of the intersection. Therefore the integral of f is determined by its value in the intersection. Q = Q∩Q' + Q-Q' and Q'=Q∩Q' + Q'-Q. Since f = 0 on both Q-Q' and Q'-Q, the integral of f is the integral over Q∩Q', which means the integral over Q and the integral over Q' are the same.
 
Why does it say then that "then f vanishes at SOME point in R" and not rather in ALL of R?

Using what it says it says that it follows that m_R(f) is less than or equal to 0. But if f(x) were equal to 0 on all of R which it seems like it should be (since R isn't in the intersection but rather only in Q'), then m_R (f) shouldn't be less than zero.

It goes on to say that:

L(f,P") less than or equal to sum of [m_R(f)]vol(R), where R are the sub rectangles contained in Q and m_R (f) = inf{f(x)| x in R}.

Thanks for your help, mathman I appreciate it.
 
If R is not a subset of the intersection, then some points of R are in the intersection (maybe none of them but we don't know), and some points are outside the intersection
 
Ahh yes that's true. I guess the only R which may have m_R (f) < 0 are the ones which are along the boundary of Q as they have some points of Q inside. If they don't, however, m_R (f) should be strictly equal to 0.

Thanks a lot for your help Office Shredder! :)
 
Let Q and Q' be two rectangles in R^n. If F: R^n -> R is a bounded function that vanishes outside Q intersect Q', then integral of f over q is equal to the integral of f over Q'.

That was the part of your comment I was trying to address. Your further comment seems to be a distortion of the original problem.

When it says that the function vanishes outside of Q intersect Q', does it mean its always zero in the intersection, or simply at some points?
This statement is completely wrong! The original statement is the function is 0 OUTSIDE the intersection, and anything INSIDE!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K