If A is dense in [0,1] and f(x) = 0, x in A, prove ∫fdx = 0.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eclair_de_XII
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Real analysis
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if a set A is dense in [0,1] and a function f is defined such that f(x) = 0 for all x in A, then the integral of f over the interval [0,1] is zero, i.e., ∫f(x)dx = 0. The participants clarify that the proof must utilize Riemann integration, as the function must be Riemann-integrable. Key steps include demonstrating that the supremum of the lower sums equals zero due to the density of A, leading to the conclusion that the integral is indeed zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Riemann integration and its properties.
  • Familiarity with the concept of dense sets in real analysis.
  • Knowledge of partitions and their role in defining integrals.
  • Ability to work with supremum and infimum in the context of integrable functions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Riemann integrable functions and their implications.
  • Learn about dense subsets in metric spaces and their significance in analysis.
  • Explore the relationship between lower and upper sums in Riemann integration.
  • Investigate counterexamples involving Lebesgue integrability versus Riemann integrability.
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in real analysis, particularly those focusing on integration theory and the properties of functions defined on intervals. This discussion is also beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of Riemann integration and dense sets.

Eclair_de_XII
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
91

Homework Statement


"A set ##A\subset [0,1]## is dense in ##[0,1]## iff every open interval that intersects ##[0,1]## contains ##x\in A##. Suppose ##f:[0,1]\rightarrow ℝ## is integrable and ##f(x) = 0,x\in A## with ##A## dense in ##[0,1]##. Show that ##\int_{0}^{1}f(x)dx=0##."

Homework Equations


Let ##P=\{x_1,...,x_n\}## be a partition of ##[0,1]##

##M_i=sup\{f(x):x\in[x_{i-1},x_i]\}##
##m_i=inf\{f(x):x\in[x_{i-1},x_i]\}##

##U(P,f)=\sum_{i=1}^nM_i(f)(x_i-x_{i-1})##
##L(P,f)=\sum_{i=1}^nm_i(f)(x_i-x_{i-1})##

##\int_{0}^{1} fdx=sup\{L(P,f):P \space \text {a partition of} \space [0,1]\}=inf\{U(P,f):P \space \text {a partition of} \space [0,1]\}##

The Attempt at a Solution


I haven't actually attempted a solution yet; everything that follows is scratchwork...

Basically, I think I have to use the fact that ##A## being dense in ##[0,1]## gives the following implication:

##\int_{x\in A}f(x)dx=0 \space ⇒ \int_{0}^{1} f(x)dx=0##,

since ##f(x)=0,\forall x\in A##, then ##\int_{x\in A} f(x)dx=0##.

So my plan is to construct a series of open intervals that intersect ##[0,1]## as such:

##Q_i=(a_i,b_i)## where ##a_i=b_{i-1}##

Then, I define the initial open interval as ##Q_0=(a_0,b_0)##, with ##a_0\leq 0## and ##b_0 > 0## and the final open interval as ##Q_n=(a_n,b_n)## where ##b_n\geq 1##.

Then I construct a partition using those open intervals with ##(x_{i-1},x_i)=(a_i,b_i)##, with ##x_0=0## and ##x_n=1##. So I would construct a lower and upper sum, which by the conditions of the problem, must be equal to each other, and equal to zero (still going to need to figure this part out).

This is my current idea of how to handle the problem. Can anyone tell me if anything I have written is off? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The claim is not true with the usual definition of integrable, which is Lebesgue-integrable. The Indicator function that is 1 on the irrational numbers and zero elsewhere is Lebesgue-integrable and has integral 1 on [0,1], even though the set on which it is zero - the rational numbers in [0,1] - is dense.

The claim may be true if we restrict ourselves to Riemann integration, as the above indicator function is not Riemann-integrable.

From your plan outline, it looks like you are working with Riemann integrals. Some element of the proof will have to exclude cases like the irrational indicator function on the grounds that they are not Riemann-integrable. Also, the proof will need to use the density of ##A##, a fact that the above plan does not reference.

I think the proof can be easier than your plan.
First prove that the 'sup' bit is zero, using the density premise. This is the only bit where you need to refer to partitions.
Then complete the proof using the premise that ##f## is integrable. What does that premise tell us about the relation between the 'sup' bit and the 'inf' bit?
 
andrewkirk said:
The claim may be true if we restrict ourselves to Riemann integration, as the above indicator function is not Riemann-integrable.

Sorry; I should have mentioned that this class is working with Riemann integration, and that ##f## is Riemann-integrable.

andrewkirk said:
First prove that the 'sup' bit is zero, using the density premise. This is the only bit where you need to refer to partitions.

My guess:

Let ##O## be an open interval such that ##O\cap [0,1]\neq ∅##.

Because ##A## is dense in ##[0,1]##, ##O\cap [0,1] \subseteq A##. So let ##P=\{x_1,...,x_n\}##.

Then, since ##A## is dense in ##[0,1]## and if ##x\in (a,b)\subset [0,1]##, then ##f(x)=0##.

So ##m_i=inf\{f(x):x\in (x_{i-1},x_i)\subset [x_{i-1},x_i]\}=0,\forall i\in ℕ##, since we assume that ##f(x)\geq 0,\forall x\in ℝ##.

So ##sup\{L(P,f)\}=0##. Since ##f## is Riemann-integrable, ##sup\{L(P,f)\}=inf\{U(P,f)\}=\int_{0}^{1} f(x)dx=0##.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K