On integral of simple function and representation

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter psie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the properties of integrals of simple functions within the context of measure theory. Participants explore how to demonstrate that the integral of a simple function is independent of its representation, particularly when expressed in terms of disjoint sets.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to show that the integral remains the same when a simple function is represented in different forms, specifically when the sets involved are disjoint.
  • Another participant suggests interpreting the measure of a set as the integral of its characteristic function, which seems to clarify the definition of the integral.
  • There is a reiteration of the need to demonstrate that two representations of a simple function lead to equal integrals, with emphasis on the equality of functions and their implications for integrals.
  • A participant mentions finding a proof on ProofWiki that is self-contained, indicating a potential resource for further clarification.
  • One participant asserts that the integral's consistency has not been established in standard analysis courses, suggesting that this result is essential for defining integrals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and establishment of the integral's properties. While some agree on the interpretation of measures and integrals, others highlight a lack of consensus on the foundational aspects of the integral's definition and consistency.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the disjoint nature of the sets in the representations of the simple functions, as well as the foundational definitions of integrals in the context of measure theory.

psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
I'm trying to work out how the integral of a simple function is independent of the representation chosen for the simple function.
Definition 4.1. Let ##(X,\mathcal{A},\mu)## be a measure space. If ##\phi:X\to [0,\infty)## is a positive simple function, given by $$\phi=\sum_{i=1}^N c_i\chi_{E_i}$$ where ##c_i\geq 0## and ##E_i\in\mathcal{A}##, then the integral of ##\phi## with respect to ##\mu## is $$\int\phi \ d\mu=\sum_{i=1}^N c_i\mu(E_i).$$

I wonder, how does one show that the integral is independent of the representation of the simple function? Suppose $$\phi=\sum_{i=1}^N c_i\chi_{E_i}=\sum_{i=1}^M b_i\chi_{F_i}.$$ How does it follow then that $$\sum_{i=1}^N c_i\mu(E_i)=\sum_{i=1}^M b_i\mu(F_i)?$$

I have discussed this problem with someone else and they've told me that we first need to show that the integral of the simple function is not changed when we make the sets disjoint (by sets I mean those appearing in the simple function). With a bit of work, I think I've managed to show this and I can share some of that work if anyone's interested. However, how does it then follow that given two representations, we have that they correspond to the same integral? You are allowed to assume that the sets in the representations are disjoint, since this is what I've been able to show.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
May I interpret that
\mu(E_i)=\int \chi _{Ei} d\mu ? Then the definition seems obvious.
 
anuttarasammyak said:
May I interpret that
\mu(E_i)=\int \chi _{Ei} d\mu ? Then the definition seems obvious.
Indeed, this is true from the definition, but I don't see how given ##\phi=\sum_{i=1}^N c_i\chi_{E_i}=\sum_{i=1}^M b_i\chi_{F_i}##, we have ##\sum_{i=1}^N c_i\mu(E_i)=\sum_{i=1}^M b_i\mu(F_i)##. How would you show this?
 
\phi=\sum_{i=1}^N c_i \chi_{E_i}=\sum_{i=1}^M b_i \chi_{F_i}
\int d\mu \ \phi=\int d\mu\sum_{i=1}^N c_i \chi_{E_i}=\int d\mu\sum_{i=1}^M b_i \chi_{F_i}
\int d\mu \ \phi=\sum_{i=1}^N c_i \mu(E_i)=\sum_{i=1}^M b_i \mu (F_i)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
If two functions are equal, then their integrals must be equal. This follows from the fundamental nature of equality: equal objects may be freely substituted for each other.

Your question reduces to: how do you show that \sum c_i \chi_{E_i} = \sum b_i \chi_{F_i}? The answer is: as you would for any other function. Two functions are equal iff they have the same domain and codomain and do the same thing to each element of their domain.

I think it is also implicit that the E_i are disjoint, which means that if \sum c_i \chi_{e_i} =\sum b_i \chi_{F_i} then for each i there exists a unique j such that c_i = b_j and E_i = F_j.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
Thanks for the replies.

I found this proof on ProofWiki, which is quite self-contained.
 
I think everyone else in this thread is missing the main point, which is that the integral is not defined or proven to be consistent at this point in a standard analysis course - in fact this result is necessary to be able to define what an integral is
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Samy_A and psie

Similar threads

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