I just beginning to study measure theory. so far from what i understand so far , can we say in general, an integral is a measure, (ie it is nothing but a set function. a mapping [tex] F : \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} [/tex] where [tex] \mathcal{F} [/tex] is a family of sets.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

does it make sense to say in general an integral of a function F, is [tex] \int_{A} F d\mu [/tex] is the measure of the image of the [tex] F [/tex] over some set [tex] A [/tex] using the measure [tex] \mu [/tex]. with the condition the image of [tex] F [/tex] over [tex] A [/tex] must be measurable using the measure [tex] \mu [/tex]

so for example the two that i know are lebesgue-integral, lebesgue-stieltjes integral, are basically are general integrals using different measures.

if we could say the above then where would the riemann integral fit in to this.

sorry if this is a bit vague, i'm trying to get my head around this stuff

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Is an Integral a measure

Loading...

Similar Threads - Integral measure | Date |
---|---|

I Confusion over using integration to find probability | Jun 27, 2017 |

A Comparative statistics of (trivariate) random event | Feb 10, 2017 |

A Integral of squared univariate PDF | Feb 3, 2017 |

Value of a measure theoretic integral over a domain shrinking to a single set | Jan 18, 2012 |

Integral over a set of measure 0 | Sep 20, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**