Integral over a set of measure 0

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Boot20
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Measure Set
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
7 replies · 10K views
Boot20
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Is the integral over a set of measure zero always equals to zero? Can the integral be undefined?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathman said:
It may be undefined if the function itself is peculiar with infinity as its value. For ordinary functions the integral will be 0.

Sorry, I have the question that, if Lebesgue integration, they always define the convention [tex]\infty \cdot 0 = 0[/tex], so, in this case, even the function takes [tex]\infty[/tex] in a set of measure 0, the integral is still 0?
 
For Lebesgue integration, that the integral over a set of measure zero is a rather trivial theorem, following from the fact that all simple functions have integral zero -- so via (what I believe is) the usual formulation, it doesn't even need to be treated as a special case.


Riemann integration assumes the function is real-valued, so it doesn't even apply if you are considering extended-real-number-valued functions that take on the values [itex]+\infty[/itex] or [itex]-\infty[/itex].
 
Last edited:
But apparently to me [tex]\infty \cdot 0 = 0[/tex] should be adopted
Else, if [tex]f[/tex] admit [tex]\infty[/tex] on set [tex]A[/tex] of measure [tex]0[/tex], we may use [tex]f_{n} = n[/tex] on [tex]A[/tex] to approximate [tex]f[/tex] from below, then, the integral of [tex]f_{n}[/tex] is zero, by monotone convergence theorem, the integral of [tex]f[/tex] should be zero as well. If we do not define [tex]\infty \cdot 0 = 0[/tex], we may get inconsistency in this case?
 
wayneckm said:
But apparently to me [tex]\infty \cdot 0 = 0[/tex] should be adopted
Else, if [tex]f[/tex] admit [tex]\infty[/tex] on set [tex]A[/tex] of measure [tex]0[/tex], we may use [tex]f_{n} = n[/tex] on [tex]A[/tex] to approximate [tex]f[/tex] from below, then, the integral of [tex]f_{n}[/tex] is zero, by monotone convergence theorem, the integral of [tex]f[/tex] should be zero as well. If we do not define [tex]\infty \cdot 0 = 0[/tex], we may get inconsistency in this case?

But what if the f_{n} are defined over sets of measure non-zero, but that the sum of the measure of those sets converges to zero?
 
Last edited:
Boot20 said:
But what if the f_{n} are defined over sets of measure noe intgen-zero, but that the sum of the measure of those sets converges to zero?

Sorry that I cannot get your idea exactly. Or can you tell me explicitly what is the function [tex]f[/tex] to be integrated?