Prove that an Lebesgue integral exists iff the other exists

  • Thread starter Thread starter QIsReluctant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions under which the Lebesgue integral of a measurable function exists, specifically comparing the existence of the integral with respect to a measure defined by another function. The subject area involves measure theory and integration, particularly focusing on Lebesgue integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the definitions and constructions of Lebesgue integrals, with one participant noting a connection between the existence of integrals and the supremum of integrals of simple functions. Another participant outlines a proof strategy involving indicator functions and pointwise limits.

Discussion Status

Some participants have made progress in understanding the problem, with one confirming the equivalence of integrals for positive measurable functions. Questions remain regarding the assumptions needed for integrals to exist, particularly concerning the treatment of infinite values and the positivity of coefficients in simple functions.

Contextual Notes

There is a discussion about the implications of assuming the integrals are finite and the conditions under which the integrals can be considered to exist, including the handling of infinite values in certain cases.

QIsReluctant
Messages
33
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Let g: ℝ → ℝ be Lebesgue measurable, let μ(A) be a measure of Lebesgue measurable sets defined by
μ(A) = ∫A f dx, where f: ℝ → ℝ is non-negative, with finite integral on compact intervals.

Prove that
g(x)dμ(x)
exists if and only if
g(x)f(x) dx
exists, in which case the two are equal

Homework Equations


N/A[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm reviewing the definitions/construction of Lebesgue integrals but that is not leading to anything fruitful. I have that the first integral exists iff the integral of |g| exists, which exists iff the sup of all integrals of simple, bounded, measurable, finitely supported functions less than |g| is finite ... and then I am stuck.
[/B]
I suppose that seeing the equation
∫|g|dμ = sup Σai μ(Ai) = sup ΣaiAi f dμ
(aiχAi being some simple function approximating |g|) causes me to "get" the reason for the equality -- if we imagine the Ai partitioning ℝ and getting smaller and smaller (small enough to encompass some single point x) we see that the a_i ≈ g(x) and that the integral ≈ f(x)dx. But actually showing the truth of this rigorously is an entirely different matter. Please advise me! Thanks.

 
Physics news on Phys.org
The standard method of proof for this is sometimes called "bootstrapping". The idea is that you show the following for measurable functions.

1) The theorem holds for ##g = \chi_A## an indicator function.
2) If the theorem holds for positive functions ##g_i##, then it holds for finite linear combinations ##\sum \alpha_i g_i## with ##\alpha_i\geq 0##.
3) If the theorem holds for positive functions ##g_n## with ##n\in \mathbb{N}## such that they increase pointswise to a limit function ##g##, then the theorem holds for ##g##.
4) If the theorem holds for all positive functions, then it holds for all functions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: QIsReluctant
Okay, I think I am starting to make progress here. A few questions:

(1) We can assume that the a_i are positive because, if not, we're assuming the simple function is positive and so could just replace the simple function with another one with positive coefficients, right?
(2) Does "exist" in this case include the possibility that the integral is infinite? Or does "integral of f exist" = "f is Lebesgue integrable"? I ask because Wikipedia tells me I have to assume that μ(Ai) < +∞ if ai ≠ 0. But if we have all positive coefficients then we don't have an issue where we get a ∞ - ∞ term, and we're allowed to approach infinity with our sum. Do I need Wikipedia's requirement, or not?
 
Indeed, the positive requirements are there to rule out ##\infty-\infty## situations. In those cases, the integral is allowed to be infinite. It is only in the last step of my outline that you assume the integral to be finite.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: QIsReluctant
I proved that the integrals exist and are the same for positive, measurable functions. So if g is a general measurable function, then we have
g = g+ - g-.

Take the integral over ℝ. Each of the two integrands (of ∫ g+dμ and ∫g-dμ ) represents a positive, measurable function, so we can replace their integrals w/r to dm(x) with their integrals w/r to f(x)dx, then combine. We have that the two integrals are equivalent, thus are defined when and only when the other is defined, namely, when one of the two sub-integrals is finite.

Sound correct?
 
Sounds good.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: QIsReluctant
Thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K