Lebesgue Integration of Simple Functions .... Lindstrom, Lemma 7.4.6 .... ....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of Lemma 7.4.6 from Tom L. Lindstrom's book on measure and integration, specifically focusing on the properties of simple functions and the implications of the limit of integrals. Participants seek clarification on the formal proof that establishes the inequality $$\lim_{ n \to \infty } \int_B f_n d \mu \geq b \mu (B)$$ and address potential misunderstandings regarding the behavior of the sequence of functions involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter requests assistance in proving that $$\lim_{ n \to \infty } \int_B f_n d \mu \geq b \mu (B)$$, suggesting a proof by contradiction.
  • Another participant provides a detailed argument assuming the limit exists and shows that if the integral does not meet the inequality, it leads to a contradiction.
  • Peter questions the notation $$f_n (x) \uparrow b$$, expressing concern that it implies convergence from below, while the lemma only states that $$\lim_{n \to \infty } f_n (x) \geq b$$.
  • Another participant agrees with Peter's concern, stating that the lemma's proof contains a careless statement and clarifies that the information provided is sufficient for the proof's requirements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the notation regarding the convergence of the sequence of functions. While there is agreement on the need for clarity in the proof, no consensus is reached on the implications of the notation used.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential ambiguities in the assumptions made in the lemma and the proof, particularly regarding the behavior of the sequences involved and the conditions under which the limit is evaluated.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Tom L. Lindstrom's book: Spaces: An Introduction to Real Analysis ... and I am focused on Chapter 7: Measure and Integration ...

I need help with the proof of Lemma 7.4.6 ...

Lemma 7.4.6 and its proof read as follows:
Lindstrom - Lemma  7.4.6 .png

In the above proof by Lindstrom we read the following:

" ... ... Since this holds for any number $$a$$ less than $$b$$ and any number $$m$$ less than $$\mu (B)$$, we must have $$\lim_{ n \to \infty } \int_B f_n d \mu \geq b \mu (B)$$ . ... ... "I need help in order to show, formally and rigorously, that $$\lim_{ n \to \infty } \int_B f_n d \mu \geq b \mu (B)$$ ... ...My thoughts are that we could assume that $$\lim_{ n \to \infty } \int_B f_n d \mu \lt b \mu (B)$$ ... ... and proceed to demonstrate a contradiction ... but I'm not sure how to formally proceed ... ...

Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter

=================================================================================================================


Readers of the above post may be assisted by access to Lindstrom's introduction to the integration of simple functions ... so I am providing access to the relevant text ... as follows:
Lindstrom - 1 - Section 7.4 ... Integration of Simple Functions ... Part 1... .png

Lindstrom - 2 - Section 7.4 ... Integration of Simple Functions ... Part 2 ... .png


Hope that helps ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
In the above proof by Lindstrom we read the following:

" ... ... Since this holds for any number $$a$$ less than $$b$$ and any number $$m$$ less than $$\mu (B)$$, we must have $$\lim_{ n \to \infty } \int_B f_n d \mu \geq b \mu (B)$$ . ... ... "I need help in order to show, formally and rigorously, that $$\lim_{ n \to \infty } \int_B f_n d \mu \geq b \mu (B)$$ ... ...
You want formal and rigorous, here it is!

First, Lindstrom appears to assume that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_Bf_n\,d\mu$ exists. Since $\left\{\int_Bf_n\,d\mu\right\}$ is an increasing sequence, it will either converge to a finite limit or tend to infinity. I don't know whether Lindstrom allows infinity as a possible limit. Even if he does, we do not need to worry about that case, because if $\int_Bf_n\,d\mu$ does go to infinity it will certainly eventually be larger than $b\mu(B)$.

To prove the inequality, given $\varepsilon>0$, choose $\delta$ such that $0<\delta<\dfrac{\varepsilon}{b+\mu(B)}$. Now choose $a<b$ and $m<\mu(B)$ with $a>b-\delta$ and $m>\mu(B)-\delta$. Then $$b\mu(B) - am = b(\mu(B) - m) + m(b-a) < \delta(b + m) < \delta(b + \mu(B)) = \varepsilon.$$ So $am > b\mu(B) - \varepsilon$. With $N$ as in Lindstrom's proof it follows that$$ \int_Bf_n\,d\mu \geqslant am > b\mu(B) - \varepsilon$$ whenever $n\geqslant N$. Since that holds for all $\varepsilon>0$, $$ \int_Bf_n\,d\mu \geqslant b\mu(B)$$.

[You will recognise that the above argument is just a variant of the proof that the limit of a product is the product of the two limits.]
 
Thanks for a most helpful post Opalg ...

Working carefully through your proof now ...

BUT ... I have another question ...

In the above proof by Lindstrom we read the following:

" ... ... Since $$f_n (x) \uparrow b$$ for all $$x \in B$$ ... ... "Unless I am misunderstanding the notation, $$f_n (x) \uparrow b$$ means $$f_n$$ tends to $$b$$ from below ... but ... all we are given is that $$\lim_{n \to \infty } f_n (x) \geq b$$ which surely is not the same ...

Can someone please clarify this issue ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Peter said:
In the above proof by Lindstrom we read the following:

" ... ... Since $$f_n (x) \uparrow b$$ for all $$x \in B$$ ... ... "Unless I am misunderstanding the notation, $$f_n (x) \uparrow b$$ means $$f_n$$ tends to $$b$$ from below ... but ... all we are given is that $$\lim_{n \to \infty } f_n (x) \geq b$$ which surely is not the same ...
I completely agree with you. The statement of the lemma says that $\{f_n\}$ is an increasing sequence and that $\{f_n(x)\}$ has a limit that is greater than or equal to $b$. The statement in the proof of the lemma, that $f_n(x)\uparrow b$, is careless and wrong (because the limit could be greater than $b$). However, the information given in the statement of the lemma is sufficient to ensure that the sequence $\{A_n\}$ is increasing and that $$B = \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n$$, which is what is needed for the rest of the proof to work.
 
Oh ... thanks Opalg ...

Appreciate your help ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K