Proving that a measurable function is integrable

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the integrability of a measurable function f:ℝ→ℝ by demonstrating that the condition ∑^{∞}_{k=-∞}2^{k}m(A_{k}) < ∞ must hold. The user attempts to apply Beppo Levi's lemma and relates the measure m(A_{k}) to the length of intervals I_{k}, but faces criticism regarding the validity of their assumptions. Specifically, the assertion that m(A_{k})≤ℓ(I_{k}) is challenged, highlighting a misunderstanding of the relationship between the sets A_{k} and I_{k}.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of measurable functions and their properties.
  • Familiarity with integration concepts, specifically Lebesgue integration.
  • Knowledge of Beppo Levi's lemma and its application in analysis.
  • Basic understanding of measure theory, including the concept of measure m and intervals.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Lebesgue integration and its criteria for integrability.
  • Learn about Beppo Levi's lemma and its implications in measure theory.
  • Explore the relationship between measurable sets and their measures in detail.
  • Investigate counterexamples in measure theory to understand common pitfalls.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis and measure theory, as well as educators looking to clarify concepts related to integrability and measurable functions.

Crossfader
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
1. Homework Statement [/b]

Let f:ℝ\rightarrowℝ be measureable and A_{k}=\left\{x\inℝ:2^{k-1}&lt;\left|f(x)\right|≤2^{k}\right\}, k\in \mathbb{Z}.

Show that f is integrable only if \sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}2^{k}m(A_{k}) &lt; ∞.

Homework Equations


By the definition f is integrable in ℝ if and only if f is measurable and ∫_{ℝ}\left|f\right|&lt;∞.

Now we know that f is measureable, thus we should show that ∫_{E}\left|f\right|≤ \sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}2^{k}m(A_{k}) &lt; ∞.


The Attempt at a Solution



Let f = \sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}f_{k}, we get \left|f \right| = \left| \sum^{∞}_{k=-∞} f_{k} \right| \Rightarrow \int_{ℝ}\left|f\right| = \int_{ℝ}\left|\sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}f_{k}\right|

(?)We also notice that \int_{ℝ}\left|\sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}f_{k}\right| = \sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}\int_{ℝ}\left|f_{k}\right| = 2 \sum^{∞}_{k=0}\int_{ℝ}\left|f_{k}\right| (Beppo Levi's lemma?) (?)

Let I_{k} = [2^{k-1}, 2^{k}]. The length of this interval is \ell(I_{k}) = 2^{k}-2^{k-1}=2^{k}(1-2^{-1}) = (1/2)2^{k}

We get m(A_{k})≤\ell(I_{k}) \Rightarrow \sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}m(A_{k})≤\sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}\ell(I_{k}) = \frac{1}{2}\sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}2^{k}.

And thereby 2\sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}m(A_{k}) = \sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}2m(A_{k}) ≤ \sum^{∞}_{k=-∞}2^{k}.

Does my inference make any sense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is f_k? You didn't define it.

Also, your assertion that

m(A_{k})≤\ell(I_{k})

is nonsense. A_k is a subset of the domain of the function, whereas I_k is a subset of the range. You certainly do not have A_k \subset I_k, which I suspect is the unstated assertion leading you to claim that m(A_{k})≤\ell(I_{k}). E.g. if I put f(x) = 2^{k} for all x, then A_k = \mathbb{R} and thus m(A_k) = \infty.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K