Norm of integral less than or equal to integral of norm of function

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the inequality established by Le Gall in "Measure Theory, Probability and Stochastic Processes," which states that for an integrable function \( f: E \to \mathbb{C} \), the absolute value of the integral is less than or equal to the integral of the absolute value: \( \left|\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu\right| \leq \int |f|\,\mathrm{d}\mu \). The first equality in the proof utilizes the identity \( z_1 \cdot z_2 \equiv |z_1||z_2|\cos(\arg z_1 - \arg z_2) \) with \( z_1 = a = e^{i\psi} \) and \( z_2 = \int f\,d\mu \). The discussion concludes that the supremum of complex numbers can be interpreted in terms of the norm, leading to the established inequality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of measurable spaces and measures, specifically \( (E, \mathcal{A}, \mu) \)
  • Familiarity with integrable functions in real and complex analysis
  • Knowledge of the properties of the supremum and norms in \( \mathbb{C} \)
  • Basic concepts of linearity in integration
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of integrable functions in measure theory
  • Learn about the supremum and its applications in complex analysis
  • Explore the implications of the triangle inequality in integration
  • Investigate the linearity of integrals with respect to complex functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of measure theory, and anyone interested in the properties of integrals in real and complex analysis will benefit from this discussion.

psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
I have a question concerning the inequality $$\left|\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu\right|\leq\int |f|\,\mathrm{d}\mu,$$where ##f## is complex-valued, measurable and integrable.
Let ##(E,\mathcal A)## be a measurable space equipped with a measure ##\mu##. If ##f:E\to\mathbb R## is integrable, then we have ##\left|\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu\right|\leq\int |f|\,\mathrm{d}\mu##. If ##f:E\to\mathbb C## is integrable, Le Gall in his book Measure Theory, Probability and Stochastic Processes argues that (on page 29, bottom) the easiest way to obtain the inequality is by noticing $$\left|\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu\right|=\sup_{a\in\mathbb C,|a|=1}a\cdot \int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu=\sup_{a\in\mathbb C,|a|=1}\int a\cdot f\,\mathrm{d}\mu,\tag1$$where ##a\cdot z## denotes the Euclidean scalar product on ##\mathbb C## identified with ##\mathbb R^2##. I wonder
  1. What is the author using in the first equality? Why does the second equality hold?
  2. How does one obtain the inequality from ##(1)##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note the identity z_1 \cdot z_2 \equiv |z_1||z_2|\cos(\arg z_1 - \arg z_2).
1. The first equality follows from applying the above identity to z_1 = a = e^{i\psi} and z_2 = \int f\,d\mu. The second equality follows because for constant a, <br /> a \cdot \int f\,d\mu = \int a \cdot f\,d\mu as can be verified by writing both sides in terms of real and imaginary parts.

2. I think the idea is to show that <br /> \left| \int f\,d\mu \right| = \sup_{\psi\,\mathrm{constant}} \int e^{i\psi} \cdot f\,d\mu \leq \sup_{\psi\,\mathrm{variable}} \int e^{i\psi} \cdot f\,d\mu = \int |f|\,d\mu. (Naturally one must constrain \psi so that e^{i\psi} \cdot f is integrable.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
Good question. I don't know how to interpret the sup of a set of complex numbers or vectors in ##\mathbb {R}^2## (which are not ordered). Does '.' mean the dot product or complex multiplication?
But here is my best guess at what he means.
1) The first one is just rotating the integral around until it is positive real and equal to its norm. The second one is the linearity of integration.
2) Bringing sup inside the integral can only give larger values. And the sup equals the norm.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
I hope you realize that this inequality is intuitively clear. There can be a lot of cancellation (full or partial) in the integral on the left side but no cancellation on the right side.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pasmith and psie

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K