Hello all,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I am wondering the implication between almost everywhere bounded function and Lebesgue integrable.

In the theory of Lebesgue integration, if a non-negative function [tex]f[/tex] is bounded a.e., then it should be Lebesgue integrable, i.e. [tex]\int f d\mu < \infty[/tex] because we do not take into account the unboundedness of [tex]f[/tex] in a null set when approximate by sequence of simple function, am I correct? So this means a.e. boundedness implies Lebesgue integrable?

And seems there is a counterexample on the reverse implication, http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/AnIntegrableFunctionWhichDoesNotTendToZero.html [Broken], so that means Lebesgue integrable does not imply bounded a.e.

So is this because in finding the Lebesgue integral, it is indeed an infinite series of products, which is [tex] \sum s_{n} \cdot \mu(A_{n})[/tex], so as long as the increase in [tex] s_{n} [/tex] is not faster than the decrease in [tex] \mu(A_{n}) [/tex], it is possible to have a finite value of this infinite sum? So in this way we may end up with a non-bounded a.e. function but Lebesgue integrable?

Wayne

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

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

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

# Lebesgue Integration

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**