Proving a Limit Involving Integrals and a Locally Integrable Function

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving a limit related to integrals and a locally integrable function, specifically focusing on the behavior of the integral of a continuous function multiplied by another function as one approaches a boundary point. The subject area includes analysis and properties of limits, integrals, and continuity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of the limit of g(x) approaching infinity and its effect on the limit of the integral. There are attempts to apply integration by parts and explore the boundedness of the integral. Questions arise about how to show that certain integrals are bounded and how to handle the limits involved.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of various approaches, including integration by parts and the implications of boundedness. Some participants suggest using inequalities to establish limits, while others question the assumptions and interpretations of the problem. No consensus has been reached, but several productive lines of reasoning are being examined.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the constraints of the problem, including the requirement that the integral converges and the behavior of the functions involved as they approach the boundary. There is also mention of the need to consider the local integrability of g' and the implications for g.

MatthewD
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose [tex]f[/tex] is continuous and [tex]F(x)=\int_a^x f(t)dt[/tex] bounded on [tex][a,b)[/tex]. Given [tex]g>0, g'\geq 0[/tex] and [tex]g'[/tex] locally integrable on [tex][a,b)[/tex] and [tex]lim_{ x\rightarrow b^-} g(x) =[/tex] infinity. prove
for p>1
[tex]\displaystyle{lim_{ x\rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{[g(x)]^p} \int^x_a f(t)g(t)dt = 0}[/tex]

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


If you know [tex]lim_{ x\rightarrow b^-} g(x) =\infty[/tex], don't you also know [tex]lim_{ x\rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{[g(x)]} = 0[/tex] and therefore [tex]lim_{ x\rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{[g(x)]^p}=0[/tex]...so we're done? But the hint says to use parts so I don't know :(
Any help would be greatly appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
thats only the case if the integral is bounded, so you should try & show that...
 
How would I show an integral is bounded? If I know obviously [tex]\int_a^x f(t)dt[/tex] is bounded, how would I know anything about the g function. The information given basically denies that its bounded right? Since the limit is infinity? I'm so lost!
 
have you tried the suggested hint?
 
also, bounded would show it, but I think a lesser constraiint may also work, either way I would try simplifying things by using integration by parts
 
When I tried parts, i let u= g(t) and dv = f(t)dt so du = g'(t)dt and v = F(t) and I got


[tex]\displaystyle{lim_{ x\rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{[g(x)]^p} \int^x_a f(t)g(t)dt = lim_{ x\rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{[g(x)]^p} (g(x)F(x) -g(a)F(a)- \int^x_a F(t)g'(t)dt)}[/tex]

[tex]\displaystyle{= lim_{ x\rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{[g(x)]^p} (g(x)F(x) - \int^x_a F(t)g'(t)dt)}[/tex]
since F(a) = 0

Can I reduce further...?
 
i see it now, using parts helped a lot, thanks

i'm suppose to follow it up with this addition:

assume further that [tex]\int^b_a f(t)dt[/tex] converges and show [tex]lim_{x \rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{g(x)} \int_a^x f(t)g(t)dt = 0[/tex]


i used parts again and came down to the fact:

[tex]lim_{x \rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{g(x)} \int_a^x f(t)g(t)dt = lim_{x \rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{g(x)} \int_a^x F(t)g'(t)dt[/tex]


how do i show, for sure, this =0?
 
how about usng the fact that F is bounded, g'>0 and setting up an inequality which squeezes your expression to zero?
 
lanedance said:
how about usng the fact that F is bounded, g'>0 and setting up an inequality which squeezes your expression to zero?

The entire expression, or just the integral part? Could I do:

[tex]lim_{x\rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{g(x)} \leq lim_{x\rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{g(x)} \int^x_a F(t)g'(t)dt \leq lim_{x\rightarrow b^-} \int^x_a M g'(t)dt[/tex]

where the right hand side becomes

[tex]=lim_{x\rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{g(x)}M(g(x)-g(a))[/tex]
[tex]=lim_{x\rightarrow b^-} M(1-\frac{g(a)}{g(x)})[/tex]

But how does this squeeze to 0? or am i looking at it wrong?
 
  • #10
the 2nd half of the equality is looking good, but i think you dropped a factor of p somewhere, maybe you could assume [itex]p = 1+\epsilon, \epsilon>0[/itex]

you may need to tighten it up by accounting for the case when M<0, ie by starting from [itex]\exists M > 0 : |F(x)|<M,\forall x \in [a,b)[/itex]
 
  • #11
but there's no p in the second part of the problem...?
 
  • #12
MatthewD said:
i'm suppose to follow it up with this addition:

assume further that [tex]\int^b_a f(t)dt[/tex] converges and show [tex]lim_{x \rightarrow b^-} \frac{1}{g(x)} \int_a^x f(t)g(t)dt = 0[/tex]

This is the second part...
 
  • #13
ok sorry, i missed the 2nd part, so you're ok with the first bit now?

so if i integrate by parts I get a little different:
[tex]\lim_{x \to b^-} \frac{1}{g(x)}\int_a^x dt f(t)g(t)[/tex]
[tex]= \lim_{x \to b^-}\frac{1}{g(x)}(F(t)g(t)|_a^x - \int_a^x dt F(t)g'(t))[/tex]
[tex]= \lim_{x \to b^-}(F(x)-\frac{F(a)g(a)}{g(x)} - \frac{1}{g(x)}\int_a^x dt F(t)g'(t))[/tex]

using convergence of F as x->b, then
[tex]= F(b) - \lim_{x \to b^-}\frac{1}{g(x)}\int_a^x dt F(t)g'(t)[/tex]
so working this line, i guess you need to try & show the limit of the end expression is F(b)...
 
Last edited:
  • #14
i haven't totally worked it out, but it may help to try and show for any a<x0<b
[tex]\lim_{x \to b^-}\frac{1}{g(x)}\int_a^{x_0} dt F(t)g'(t) = 0[/tex]
noting that as g' is locally integrable, it means g is defined on the interval [a,b), ie. it doesn't explode anywhere

then try splitting the integral into separate portions & considering the continuity of the function f on a small region near to b. (though i could see this might get tricky with double limits...)
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
4K