Is the integral of a non-negative function always positive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jenga42
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The integral of a non-negative function is always non-negative, which establishes that if \( a(x) < b(x) \) for all \( x \) in the interval \([x_i, x_f]\), then it follows that \( \int_{x_i}^{x_f} f(x)a(x) \, dx < \int_{x_i}^{x_f} f(x)b(x) \, dx \) when \( f(x) > 0 \). The discussion confirms that the monotonicity of integrals allows for this conclusion, as multiplying both sides of the inequality \( a(x) < b(x) \) by the positive function \( f(x) \) preserves the inequality. The proof relies on the definition of the integral and the properties of non-negative functions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of integral calculus, specifically properties of integrals.
  • Familiarity with monotonic functions and their implications in calculus.
  • Knowledge of non-negative functions and their behavior under integration.
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical notation and inequalities.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of monotonic functions in calculus.
  • Learn about the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and its applications.
  • Explore the concept of integrability and conditions for non-negative functions.
  • Investigate advanced topics in real analysis, focusing on inequalities involving integrals.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus and real analysis, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to integrals and inequalities.

jenga42
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm trying to figure out if this is true - any help would be greatly appreciated!

If a(x) < b(x) between the values x_i and x_f then is the following also true?...

int_{x_i}^{x_f} dx f(x) a(x) < int_{x_i}^{x_f} dx f(x) b(x)

where f(x)>0 for all x.

...I think it is true, but I'd like to be able to prove it!

Thanks,

Jenny
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your notation is a bit awkward. Are f(x)a(x) and f(x)b(x) the integrands?
 
If f is continuous (you will definitely need that, I think) and the interval is finite, then you could probably estimate it by its maximum and do a series of inequalities like
| \int_a^b f(x) p(x) dx | &lt; | f(x) p(x) (b - a) | &lt; \cdots

Or you could try considering
\int_a^b f(x) (p(x) - q(x) )
and showing that it is positive (for q(x) < p(x) everywhere).
 
You don't need continuity or anything of the sort -- the integral is monotone. That is, if h and k are integrable on [a,b], and h(x)<=k(x) for all x in [a,b], then

\int_a^b h(x) dx \leq \int_a^b k(x) dx.

Edit: Oh. Maybe that's what you were saying here:
CompuChip said:
Or you could try considering
\int_a^b f(x) (p(x) - q(x) )
and showing that it is positive (for q(x) < p(x) everywhere).
 
Hi,

Thanks for replying! I didn't know I could type the equations!

Just to clarify, I meant if a(x)<b(x), can I say

\int_{x_i}^{x_f} f(x) a(x) dx &lt; \int_{x_i}^{x_f} f(x) b(x) dx

where f(x)>0.

I'd like to know if there is a general theorem for this to be true? ...I think that (please correct me if I'm wrong!) I could only use

Or you could try considering
\int_a^b f(x) (p(x) - q(x) )
and showing that it is positive (for q(x) < p(x) everywhere).

for a specific f(x).

What does "the integral is monotone" mean?

Thanks!
 
I've just had a thought, can I just say that as f(x)>0, then it cannot change the direction of the inequality, hence if a(x)<b(x) , then multiplying both sides by f(x), we find f(x)a(x)<f(x)b(x) and therefore

\int_{x_i}^{x_f} f(x)a(x) dx &lt; \int_{x_i}^{x_f} f(x)b(x) dx

?

This is assuming that if a(x)<b(x), then

\int_{x_i}^{x_f} a(x) dx &lt; \int_{x_i}^{x_f} b(x) dx

But I don't understand why this second equation is true - I've tried looking up monotone functions, but haven't found anything useful!

Thanks
 
jenga42 said:
I've just had a thought, can I just say that as f(x)>0, then it cannot change the direction of the inequality, hence if a(x)<b(x) , then multiplying both sides by f(x), we find f(x)a(x)<f(x)b(x) and therefore

\int_{x_i}^{x_f} f(x)a(x) dx &lt; \int_{x_i}^{x_f} f(x)b(x) dx
That's perfect. (But you should be using \leq instead of &lt;.)

This is assuming that if a(x)<b(x), then

\int_{x_i}^{x_f} a(x) dx &lt; \int_{x_i}^{x_f} b(x) dx

But I don't understand why this second equation is true
This should be straightforward to prove if you just use the definition of the integral. To make it even easier, you can prove the following:

If c(x) is integrable on [x_i, x_f] and if c(x)>=0 for all x in [x_i, x_f], then

\int_{x_i}^{x_f} c(x) \geq 0.

[Once you do this, you can put c(x)=b(x)-a(x) to get the result you want.]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K