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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of Lemma 7.4.6 from Tom L. Lindstrom's book, "Spaces: An Introduction to Real Analysis," specifically regarding the inequality $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_B f_n d\mu \geq b \mu(B)$$. Participants clarify that the proof assumes the existence of the limit and that the sequence $$\left\{\int_B f_n d\mu\right\}$$ is increasing. A rigorous approach is provided to demonstrate the inequality using an epsilon-delta argument. Additionally, a misunderstanding regarding the notation $$f_n(x) \uparrow b$$ is addressed, confirming that it does not imply convergence from below.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue integration and simple functions
  • Familiarity with the concepts of limits and sequences in real analysis
  • Knowledge of epsilon-delta proofs in mathematical analysis
  • Proficiency in notation and terminology related to measure theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof techniques used in measure theory, particularly in the context of Lebesgue integration
  • Review the properties of increasing sequences and their limits in real analysis
  • Explore the implications of the Dominated Convergence Theorem in Lebesgue integration
  • Investigate common pitfalls in interpreting mathematical notation in proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone studying measure theory who seeks to deepen their understanding of Lebesgue integration and the nuances of formal proofs.

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