If f is continuous on [a,b], f(x)>0, and f(x0)>0 for some x0 in [a,b]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nomialists
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuous
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in calculus concerning the properties of integrals of continuous functions. The original poster presents a question about proving that the integral of a positive continuous function over a closed interval is greater than zero, given certain conditions about the function's positivity and continuity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the conditions given in the problem, particularly questioning the necessity of the strict inequality f(x) > 0 versus f(x) ≥ 0. Some suggest that the original poster may not need to consider certain parts of the problem, while others discuss the implications of continuity and integrability.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants provide insights into the relationship between the conditions of the problem and the properties of integrals, while others raise questions about the assumptions made in the original statement. There is no clear consensus yet, but several productive lines of reasoning have been suggested.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem references previous questions and hints at the continuity of the function, which may influence the approach to the proof. There is also mention of specific functions that challenge the assumptions, indicating a need for careful consideration of the conditions provided.

Nomialists
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
First of all, hello everyone, this is my first post so I am not sure if this the right place to post this question.

I am wondering if anyone can help me understand this question better.

The question goes as: if f is continuous on [a,b], f(x)>0, and f(x0)>0 for some x0 in [a,b], prove that [tex]\int^{b}_{a}f(x)dx>0[/tex].
(Hint: By continuity of f, f(x)>1/2f(x0)>0 for all x in some subinterval [c,d]. Use a) and b) steps )

a) 1) Assume f is integrable on [a,b]. Prove:
If f(x)>=0 on [a,b] then [tex]\int^{b}_{a}f(x)dx>0[/tex].

Proof:
Since every approximating sum [tex]\sum^{n}_{k=1}f(x)\Delta x>0[/tex]
then [tex]\int^{b}_{a}f(x)dx>0[/tex]

2) If m<=f(x)<=M for all x in [a,b] then [tex]m(b-a)<=\int^{b}_{a}f(x)dx<= M(b-a)[/tex]

Proof:
[tex]\int^{b}_{a} m dx <= \int^{b}_{a} f(x) dx<= \int^{b}_{a}Mdx[/tex]
[tex]\int^{b}_{a} m dx = m \int^{b}_{a} 1dx = m(b-a)[/tex] and
[tex]\int^{b}_{a} M dx = M \int^{b}_{a} 1dx = M(b-a)[/tex] then
[tex]m(b-a)<=\int^{b}_{a}f(x)dx<= M(b-a)[/tex]

b) If a<c<b then f(x) is integrable on [a,b] iff it is integrable on [a,c] and [c,b]. Moreover if f is integrable on [a,b].

[tex]\int^{b}_{a}f(x)dx = \int^{c}_{a}f(x)dx + \int^{b}_{c}f(x)dx[/tex]

I don't understand why I even need to use b) or even the second part of a). Since f is continuous then it's integrable [a,b] so I can simply replicate the proof of a) 1 to solve this one. I got this question out of Schaum's Outline of Calculus. I just don't know why the book even mention f(x)>1/2f(x0). a) and b) are previous questions to this problem.

Any help to understanding this will be much appreciated.

Thank You
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nomialists said:
The question goes as: if f is continuous on [a,b], f(x)>0, and f(x0)>0 for some x0 in [a,b], prove that [tex]\int^{b}_{a}f(x)dx>0[/tex].

Surely the second condition should be [itex]f(x)\geq 0[/itex], and not [itex]f(x)>0[/itex]? Otherwise, you can simply observe that [itex]f(x)>c>0[/itex], and so [itex]\int_a^b f(x) dx > \int_a^b c dx = c(b-a)>0[/itex].
 
quadraphonics said:
Surely the second condition should be [itex]f(x)\geq 0[/itex], and not [itex]f(x)>0[/itex]? Otherwise, you can simply observe that [itex]f(x)>c>0[/itex], and so [itex]\int_a^b f(x) dx > \int_a^b c dx = c(b-a)>0[/itex].

That doesn't follow from f(x)>0 consider the function f(x)=1/x2 then f(x)>0 everywhere but there is no c such that f(x)>c everywhere.

And the theorem is false if we allow [itex]f(x)\geq 0[/itex] since f(x)=0 satisfies that condition, but does not have a nonzero integral.
 
f(x)=0 doesn't satisfy f(x_0) > 0 for some x_0 in [a,b]. And f(x)=1/x^2 have such a c, fx.

1/(a^2+epsilon)
 
d_leet said:
That doesn't follow from f(x)>0 consider the function f(x)=1/x2 then f(x)>0 everywhere but there is no c such that f(x)>c everywhere.

On a finite interval [itex][a,b][/itex] there is such a [itex]c[/itex]. It is [itex]c = b^{-2}[/itex].

d_leet said:
And the theorem is false if we allow [itex]f(x)\geq 0[/itex] since f(x)=0 satisfies that condition, but does not have a nonzero integral.

No, the theorem is still true, because of the other conditions ([itex]f(x_0)>0[/itex] for some [itex]x_0 \in [a,b][/itex] and [itex]f(x)[/itex] continuous). The idea is to show that there is a measurable difference between two continuous functions, if you know they differ at a single point (which itself has measure zero).

It seems to me that what they want you to do in this proof is show that there's always some component of the integral that is positive. I think the same [itex]>[/itex] typo has propagated to a) 1); they should all be [itex]\geq[/itex] as well. Then in 2) you show that if [itex]f(x)>0[/itex], [itex]\int_a^b f(x)dx > 0[/itex] as well. Finally, part 3 reminds you that you can partition [itex][a,b][/itex] and then add the resulting integrals. So, partition [itex][a,b][/itex] according to whether [itex]f(x)=0[/itex]. Then show that the [itex]f(x)>0[/itex] partition (i.e., the one containing [itex]x_0[/itex]) must have a nonzero integral.
 
quadraphonics said:
On a finite interval [itex][a,b][/itex] there is such a [itex]c[/itex]. It is [itex]c = b^{-2}[/itex].



No, the theorem is still true, because of the other conditions ([itex]f(x_0)>0[/itex] for some [itex]x_0 \in [a,b][/itex] and [itex]f(x)[/itex] continuous). The idea is to show that there is a measurable difference between two continuous functions, if you know they differ at a single point (which itself has measure zero).

It seems to me that what they want you to do in this proof is show that there's always some component of the integral that is positive. I think the same [itex]>[/itex] typo has propagated to a) 1); they should all be [itex]\geq[/itex] as well. Then in 2) you show that if [itex]f(x)>0[/itex], [itex]\int_a^b f(x)dx > 0[/itex] as well. Finally, part 3 reminds you that you can partition [itex][a,b][/itex] and then add the resulting integrals. So, partition [itex][a,b][/itex] according to whether [itex]f(x)=0[/itex]. Then show that the [itex]f(x)>0[/itex] partition (i.e., the one containing [itex]x_0[/itex]) must have a nonzero integral.


exactly what I tried to say that, but put a instead of b, which is ofcause not true, yours is right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K