# Substitution in a Lebesgue integral

• I
• DavideGenoa
In summary, the conversation discusses the relationship between Lebesgue summable functions and differentiable functions, specifically when the function is a differomorphism. It is stated that if both the function and its inverse are continuous and differentiable, then an integral identity holds. The conversation also mentions two results from Kolmogorov-Fomin's book on absolute continuity and derivatives of absolutely continuous functions. It then asks for a proof of the integral identity and suggests using the Henstock integral. Finally, the conversation concludes with a mention of the Jones book, which provides a proof using the Lebesgue integral.
DavideGenoa
Hi, friends! I read that, if ##f\in L^1[c,d]## is a Lebesgue summable function on ##[a,b]## and ##g:[a,b]\to[c,d]## is a differomorphism (would it be enough for ##g## to be invertible and such that ##g\in C^1[a,b]## and ##g^{-1}\in C^1[a,b]##, then $$\int_\limits{g([a,b])}f(x)\,d\mu_x=\int_\limits{[a,b]}f(g(t))|g'(t)|\,d\mu_t$$where $\mu$ is the linear Lebesgue measure.

I know that the function ##F## defined by $$F(x):=\int_\limits{[c,x]}f(\xi)\,d\mu_{\xi}$$is absolutely continuous, and that the derivative ##\varphi## of an absolutely continuous function ##\Phi:[c,d]\to\mathbb{R}##, which exists almost everywhere on ##[c,d]##, is such that $$\int_\limits{[c,d]}\varphi(\xi) \,d\mu_{\xi}=\Phi(d)-\Phi(c)$$but I cannot use these two facts alone to prove the desired result.
I do see, for ex. for a non-decreasing ##g##, that ##\frac{d}{dt}\int_\limits{[g(a),g(t)]}f(x)\,d\mu_x=F'(g(t))g'(t)## exists and is equal to ##f(g(t))g'(t)## for almost every ##g(t)## (and therefore for almost every ##t##, since I think that this implies that a homeomorphism like ##g## maps null measure sets to null measure sets), but I am not able to derived the desired identity from this.

How can it be proved? I thank you any answerer very much!

Your question is a little unclear. Are you trying to prove g maps zero measure sets to zero measure sets or something else? The g property is trivially a result of g being C1.

mathman said:
Are you trying to prove g maps zero measure sets to zero measure sets or something else?
I am trying to prove that ##\int_\limits{g([a,b])}f(x)\,d\mu_x=\int_\limits{[a,b]}f(g(t))|g'(t)|\,d\mu_t##.
What follows in my previous posts is just an exposition of what I tried, of my background knowledge. I wrote that in order for potential answerers to know my level: I have studied only Kolmogorov-Fomin's Элементы теории функций и функционального анализа (##\approx## Introductory Real Analysys) and the absolute continuity of what I called ##F##, together with the equality ##\int_{[c,d]}\Phi'(\xi)\,d\mu_{\xi}=\Phi(d)-\Phi(c)##, are two results, which I know from that book, which I suppose to be related to the proof of what I am trying to prove: ##\int_\limits{g([a,b])}f(x)\,d\mu_x=\int_\limits{[a,b]}f(g(t))|g'(t)|\,d\mu_t##.
Thank you for your comment, mathman!

You can do this with Lebesgue theory, but I find the Henstock integral to give way neater and more general results of these things. Note that every Lebesgue integral is a special case of the Henstock integral.

Theorem: Let ##f:[c,d]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}## and let ##\Phi:[a,b]\rightarrow [c,d]## be continuous and strictly monotone and suppose that ##\Phi'(x)## exists for all points in ##[a,b]## except possibly countably many. Define ##\varphi(x) = \Phi'(x)## wherever defined and ##\varphi(x) = 0## on the countable set where it is not defined. Then
(a) ##f## is Henstock integrable on ##\Phi([a,b])## iff ##(f\circ \Phi)\cdot \varphi## is Henstock integrable on ##[a,b]##.
(b) ##f## is Lebesgue integrable on ##\Phi([a,b])## iff ##(f\circ \Phi)\cdot \varphi## is Lebesgue integrable on ##[a,b]##
(c) In both cases we have ##\int_{\Phi(a)}^{\Phi(b)} f = \int_a^b (f\circ \Phi)\cdot \varphi##.

Proof: Bartle, a modern theory of integration, Theorem 13.5

If you want to stay inside Lebesgue theory and choose not to use the superiority of the Henstock integral, then check out Jones "Lebesgue integration on Euclidean space" Section 16.4

DavideGenoa
micromass said:
check out Jones "Lebesgue integration on Euclidean space" Section 16.4
Mmh... I have never studied the theory of the Henstock integral: just Kolmogorov-Fomin's as I said, so I think the proof you use is above my level...
As to Jones's Lebesgue integration on Euclidean space, I cannot find the exact part where it proves the desired result: what page(s)? I cannot find the 16.4 section... Thank you so much again!

DavideGenoa said:
Mmh... I have never studied the theory of the Henstock integral: just Kolmogorov-Fomin's as I said, so I think the proof you use is above my level...
As to Jones's Lebesgue integration on Euclidean space, I cannot find the exact part where it proves the desired result: what page(s)? I cannot find the 16.4 section... Thank you so much again!

Henstock integration is actually surprisingly simple to define. It's a lot like Riemann integration, just more general.

As for the Jones book, it is in the chapter "Differentation for functions on ##\mathbb{R}##", section "change of variables". I am using the revised edition though, maybe it's not in the original one.

DavideGenoa said:
sgue summable function on [a,b][a,b] and g:[a,b]→[c,d]g:[a,b]\to[c,d] is a differomorphism (would it be enough for gg to be invertible and such that g∈C1[a,b]g\in C^1[a,b] and g−1∈C1[a,b]g^{-1}\in C^1[a,b], then
∫g([a,b])f(x)dμx=∫[a,b]f(g(t))|g′(t)|dμt​
if we know this theorem for smooth ##f## then we know it for ##f\in L^1## since the space of smooth functions is dense in ##L^1[a,b]##

DavideGenoa
micromass said:
As for the Jones book, it is in the chapter "Differentation for functions on ##\mathbb{R}##", section "change of variables".
Found. Section F of chapter 16. Thank you so much!
I follow the proof until it says that, since ##\phi_1\le\phi_2\le\ldots\le g\le\ldots\le\psi_2\le\psi_1##, the function ##g## is measurable. Why?

## 1. What is substitution in a Lebesgue integral?

Substitution in a Lebesgue integral is a method used to evaluate integrals by substituting a variable with a function, which leads to a simpler integral that can be easily solved.

## 2. When should substitution be used in a Lebesgue integral?

Substitution should be used when the integrand (function being integrated) is complicated and cannot be easily integrated using other methods. It is also useful when the limits of integration are dependent on the variable of integration.

## 3. What is the difference between substitution in a Riemann integral and a Lebesgue integral?

In a Riemann integral, substitution is used to simplify the integrand, while in a Lebesgue integral, substitution is used to change the variable of integration. Additionally, in a Lebesgue integral, the substitution function must be absolutely continuous and have a continuous inverse, while in a Riemann integral, the substitution function must be continuously differentiable and have a continuous inverse.

## 4. What are the steps for using substitution in a Lebesgue integral?

The steps for using substitution in a Lebesgue integral are:

1. Identify the substitution function
2. Calculate the derivative of the substitution function
3. Rewrite the integral using the substitution function and its derivative
4. Simplify the integral using algebraic manipulations
5. Solve the integral using other integration techniques if needed
6. Change the variable back to the original variable of integration

## 5. Can any function be used as a substitution function in a Lebesgue integral?

No, the substitution function must satisfy certain criteria, such as being absolutely continuous and having a continuous inverse. Additionally, the substitution function must also preserve the measure of the integral, meaning that the integral value should not change when the variable is substituted.

• Topology and Analysis
Replies
1
Views
729
• Topology and Analysis
Replies
4
Views
227
• Topology and Analysis
Replies
4
Views
685
• Topology and Analysis
Replies
4
Views
681
• Topology and Analysis
Replies
0
Views
323
• Topology and Analysis
Replies
5
Views
2K
• Topology and Analysis
Replies
25
Views
4K
• Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
• Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
695