Something a little odd - Lebesgue vs Riemann integral

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Riemann
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the differences between the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals, particularly in the context of improper integrals over the entire real line. Participants explore the implications of these differences, especially regarding the integrability of functions like sin(x) and the conditions under which the integrals converge or diverge.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants explain the definition of the improper integral in Riemann theory and note that it can differ from the limit of the integral over symmetric intervals.
  • There is a suggestion that the Lebesgue integral, defined as a signed measure, allows for a different approach to improper integrals, leading to potential convergence where Riemann integrals do not.
  • One participant points out that using symmetric intervals for the Lebesgue integral may not yield the general case and raises the question of whether the choice of measurable sets affects integrability.
  • Another participant recalls that the Lebesgue integral separates positive and negative parts of a function, which could lead to non-integrability for functions like sin(x).
  • There is a proposal to establish a relationship between the divergence of the improper Riemann integral and the non-integrability in the Lebesgue sense.
  • Some participants assert that if a function is Riemann integrable, the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals agree on bounded intervals, questioning the implications of this agreement for improper integrals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals, particularly regarding specific functions and the conditions under which they are integrable. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the relationship between the two types of integrals.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the integrability of functions may depend on the choice of measurable sets and that the existence of limits for the Riemann integral does not guarantee the same for the Lebesgue integral.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
In the Riemann theory for a function f defined on all of R, we define its improper integral over R as the sum of two limits:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx = \lim_{a\rightarrow -\infty}\int_{a}^0f(x)dx+\lim_{b\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{0}^b f(x)dx[/tex]

and in general, this is not equal to

[tex]\lim_{L\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-L}^L f(x)dx[/tex]

For instance, for f(x)=sin(x), neither of the two limits above exists, but the limit below is 0.

But what does Lebesgue says? We know that given f:R-->R integrable, the function [tex]\nu:\mathfrak{L}_{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}[/tex] defined by

[tex]\nu(E)=\int_Ef(x)dx[/tex]

is a (signed) measure. Signed measures enjoy the same continuity properties as finite and positive measures. That is, if E_n is an increasing sequence of measurable sets, then

[tex]\nu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^{+\infty}E_n\right)=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\nu(E_n)[/tex]

In particular, for E_n = ]-n,n[ and the measure defined above,

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-n}^nf(x)dx[/tex]

(Since U E_n=R)

What's up with that? (as in : any comments welcome)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
quasar987 said:
In the Riemann theory for a function f defined on all of R, we define its improper integral over R as the sum of two limits:

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx = \lim_{a\rightarrow -\infty}\int_{a}^0f(x)dx+\lim_{b\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{0}^b f(x)dx[/tex]

and in general, this is not equal to

[tex]\lim_{L\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-L}^L f(x)dx[/tex]

For instance, for f(x)=sin(x), neither of the two limits above exists, but the limit below is 0.

But what does Lebesgue says? We know that given f:R-->R integrable, the function [tex]\nu:\mathfrak{L}_{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}[/tex] defined by

[tex]\nu(E)=\int_Ef(x)dx[/tex]

is a (signed) measure. Signed measures enjoy the same continuity properties as finite and positive measures. That is, is E_n is an increasing sequence of measurable sets, then

[tex]\nu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^{+\infty}E_n\right)=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\nu(E_n)[/tex]

In particular, for E_n = ]-n,n[ and the measure defined above,

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-n}^nf(x)dx[/tex]

(Since U E_n=R)

What's up with that? (as in : any comments welcome)
With that choice of E_n, you are doing, effectively,
[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{-n}^{n} f(x) dx[/itex]<br /> the "Cauchy Principal Value", <b>not</b> the general Lebesque integral.[/tex]
 
Explain please!

What would the general Lebesgue integral be?
 
i seem to recall the lebesgue integral subtracts the negative part of the integral from the positive one (i.e. does the integrals of max(f,0) and min(f,0) separately) so you would simply get a non integrable function for sin since both integrals are infinite. but i have not looked at this in 40 years.
 
It would be using a sequence of measurable sets that was NOT symmetric as you have it.

Just after I read your question, I then asked myself the question you are probably thinking of: in order to be integrable, it shouldn't MATTER which measurable sets we choose! That's true but it is also true of Riemann integrable functions (in terms of intervals rather than measurable sets).

Note that
[tex]\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty}\int_{-L}^L f(x)dx= \lim_{a\rightarrow -\infty}\int_a^0 f(x)dx \lim_{b\rightarrow\infty}\int_0^L f(x)dx[/tex]
is true if all the integrals exist.

In terms of the Lebesque integral, just as for the Riemann integral, even if
[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-n}^nf(x)dx[/tex]
exists the "more general" integral,, using other measurable sets may not exist.
 
mathwonk spotted my error: sin(x) is not Lebesgue integrable because |sinx| isn't.

It would be nice then, if we could show that if f 's improper Riemann integral diverges, then it isn't Lebesgue integrable. This way, we then never encounter the humbling situation

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx \ \ \ \mbox{(Riemann)} \neq\lim_{L\rightarrow +\infty}\int_{-L}^L f(x)dx \ \ \ \mbox{(Riemann)} = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x)dx \ \ \ \mbox{(Lebesgue)}[/tex]

Bed.
 
I don't understand your dilemma. If a function is Riemann integrable, then the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals agree on any bounded interval, right? And isn't it a straightforward proof that

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(x) \, dx = \lim_{<br /> \substack{a \rightarrow -\infty \\ b \rightarrow +\infty }}<br /> \int_a^b f(x) \, dx[/tex]

whenever either side exists? (for both kinds of integrals)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K