Lebesgue measurability proof - check my proof?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinsing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the inequality L(f,P) ≤ U(f,Q) under the conditions that f is bounded on a measurable set S with finite measure, and P and Q are partitions of S. The proof utilizes the concept of refinements, specifically defining R as a refinement of both P and Q. The conclusion drawn is that if R is a refinement of P and Q, then the inequalities L(f,P) < L(f,R) < U(f,R) < U(f,Q) hold, confirming the original statement.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue measurability and integrability
  • Familiarity with partitions and refinements in measure theory
  • Knowledge of bounded functions and finite measure sets
  • Basic grasp of upper and lower sums in integration
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Lebesgue integrals and their applications
  • Learn about the concept of partitions and their refinements in measure theory
  • Explore the relationship between lower and upper sums in the context of integration
  • Investigate examples of measurable functions and their integrability conditions
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in mathematics, particularly those focusing on real analysis, measure theory, and integration techniques.

jinsing
Messages
29
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If f is bounded on the measurable set S, and the measure of S is finite, and P,Q are partitions of S, then L(f,P) \leq U(f,Q)

Homework Equations



Lebesgue measurability/integrability, refinements

The Attempt at a Solution



Not sure if this is totally right, but:

Assume the hypotheses. Let P = {E1, E2,...,En} and Q={F1, F2,...,Fm}. Let R = {A_ji}, where [tex]E_j \cap F_i = \bigcup_{i=0}^{k_j} A_{ji}.[/tex] Then R is a refinement of P \cap Q. Since S has finite measure and is measurable on a bounded function f, then it follows that

[tex]m \mu(S) \leq L(f,P\cap Q) \leq L(f,R) \leq U(f,R) \leq U(f, P \cap Q) \leq M \mu(S).[/tex]

But if R is a refinement of P \cap Q, then clearly R is a refinement of P and R is a refinment of Q. Then it follows that L(f,P) \leq U(f,Q).

You might be able to tell, but I was sort of grasping for straws towards the end. Any useful hints?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay, so I've looked at this a bit more, and I have a more specific question.

I've figured out P \cap Q isn't necessarily a refinement of S. I think the basic idea of my proof is correct, but how would you go about defining a refinement so that for every A in R, there is an E in P and a F in Q such that A is a subset of E \cap F?
 
How about this: R is a refinement of P and R is a refinement of Q. This means L(f,P) < L(f,R) < U(f,R) < U(f,Q). All that there is to the argument then is checking that L(f,P) < L(f,R) holds and that U(f,R) < U(f,Q) holds, and you can do this by creating your refinement one step at a time.

Am I missing something here?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K