The Maximum of a Nonnegative Function as an Integral

In summary, the conversation discusses how to show that the limit of a continuous function f with non-negative values on the interval [a,b] is equal to the maximum of f on [a,b]. Various methods are suggested, including using the fundamental theorem of calculus and its corollaries, and proving the integrability of a function g_m. Ultimately, the conversation ends with a satisfactory solution being produced.
  • #1
e(ho0n3
1,357
0
Homework Statement
Let f: [a,b] -> R be continuous such that f(x) ≥ 0 for all x in [a,b]. Show that

[tex]\lim_{n \to \infty} \left( \int_a^b (f(x))^n \, dx \right)^{1/n} = \max\{f(x) : x \in [a,b]\}.[/tex]


Relevant equations
The fundamental theorem of calculus and its corollaries.


The attempt at a solution
It is easy to show that the limit is less than or equal to the max of f. This doesn't rely on using the fact that f ≥ 0, so somehow this extra piece of info. turns 'less than or equal' into 'equal', but I have failed to determine why. Any tips?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Suppose M is the max. Pick any m such that 0<m<M. Define g_m(x) to be 0 if f(x)<m and m if f(x)>=m. The length of the set where g_m(x)=m is greater than zero, right? Call it d_m. g_m(x)<=f(x). Can you show if you put g_m(x) into your limit, you get m?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Heuristically, you might think of the integral as a Riemann sum, that is

[tex]
\int_a^b{dxf(x)^n}\approx\sum_{j=1}^N{\max{\{f(x):x\in[x_{j-1},x_{j}\}}^n(x_{j}-x_{j-1})}
[/tex]
where [itex]\{x_j\}_{j=0,\dots,N}[/itex] is a partition of [a,b] with [itex]x_0=1,x_N=b[/itex]. Assume f assume its maximal value m in the interval [itex][x_{\tilde j-1},x_{\tilde j })[/itex]. Then you can factor out this m to obtain
[tex]
m^n\left[x_{\tilde j}-x_{\tilde j -1}+\sum_{j=1,j\neq\tilde j}^N{\frac{\max{\{f(x):x\in[x_{j-1},x_{j}\}}^n}{m}(x_{j}-x_{j-1})}\right]
[/tex]
if you take take the nth root of this expression you get
[tex]
m\left[x_{\tilde j}-x_{\tilde j -1}+\sum_{j=1,j\neq\tilde j}^N{\frac{\max{\{f(x):x\in[x_{j-1},x_{j}\}}^n}{m}(x_{j}-x_{j-1})}\right]^{1/n}
[/tex]
Can you show that the second factor (for fixed N) converges to 1?
Can you use this to prove the original question? (You will have to be careful with interchanging the two limit processes involved.)

Edit: Ok. Dick's method is a lot easier:smile:
 
  • #4
Dick said:
Suppose M is the max. Pick any m such that 0<m<M.
We have to assume that M > 0 for that to work. We can prove the case M = 0 easily.

Define g_m(x) to be 0 if f(x)<m and m if f(x)>=m. The length of the set where g_m(x)=m is greater than zero, right? Call it d_m. g_m(x)<=f(x). Can you show if you put g_m(x) into your limit, you get m?
What do you mean by "length of the set"? Do you mean the diameter of {x in [a,b] : g_m(x) = m}? Also if I put g_m(x) into my limit and get m, what then? Are you somehow going to convert m into M?
 
  • #5
From
[tex]
\left[\int_a^b{dx g_m(x)^n}\right]^{1/n}=m
[/tex]
and
[tex]
f>g_m
[/tex]
for all 0<m<M it follows that
[tex]
\left[\int_a^b{dx f(x)^n}\right]^{1/n}\geq m
[/tex]
Letting [itex]m\to M[/itex]...
 
  • #6
Pere Callahan said:
Letting [itex]m\to M[/itex]...
I was just thinking that. Makes sense. Thanks.
 
  • #7
I'm trying to prove that g_m(x) is integrable. I wanted to do this by showing that g has finitely many points of discontinuity but I'm not sure that is this is the case. Is there an easier way of proving that g_m(x) is integrable?
 
  • #8
Hmm...I think the best way to show that g_m(x) is integrable is by using the definition together with the fact that f is integrable.
 
  • #9
Are you talking about Riemann or Lebesgue integrability? If the latter is the case, it's enough to observe that
[tex]
g_m(x)=m\chi_{\{f\geq m\}}
[/tex]
is essentially the indicator function of the set [itex]d_m=\{x\in[a,b]:f(x)\geq m\}[/itex]. It is therefore integrable if [itex]d_m[/itex] is a Borel set, which is obvious from the continuity f. If you mean Riemann integrable the reasoning is essentially the same. Show that [itex]d_m[/itex] is a union of intervals, and so again [itex]g_m[/itex] is a simple step function which you hopefully know is integrable.
 
  • #10
e(ho0n3 said:
I'm trying to prove that g_m(x) is integrable. I wanted to do this by showing that g has finitely many points of discontinuity but I'm not sure that is this is the case. Is there an easier way of proving that g_m(x) is integrable?

By 'length', sure, I meant measure. Why are you worried about such a simple function being integrable? If you are going to get all bothered about it simplify g_m even more. Just pick a point where f(x)>m. Now there's an open interval around x where f(x)>m. Define g_m to be m in that interval and zero otherwise. There. Now it's a step function. With one step.
 
  • #11
OK. I have produced a solution to my satisfaction. Thanks everybody.
 

1. What is the maximum value of a nonnegative function as an integral?

The maximum value of a nonnegative function as an integral is the largest possible value that the function can have when integrated over a given interval. This value represents the peak of the function's graph and is typically denoted as "Max[f(x)]".

2. How is the maximum value of a nonnegative function as an integral calculated?

The maximum value of a nonnegative function as an integral is calculated by finding the critical points of the function within the given interval and evaluating the function at those points. The largest value obtained is the maximum value of the function as an integral.

3. Can a nonnegative function have multiple maximum values as an integral?

No, a nonnegative function can only have one maximum value as an integral. This is because the integral represents the area under the curve of the function, and the maximum value is the highest point on the curve.

4. How does the shape of a nonnegative function's graph affect its maximum value as an integral?

The shape of a nonnegative function's graph can greatly impact its maximum value as an integral. A function with a steep, narrow peak will have a higher maximum value compared to a function with a wider, flatter peak. This is because the wider function has a larger area under the curve, which is reflected in its integral value.

5. Can the maximum value of a nonnegative function as an integral be negative?

No, the maximum value of a nonnegative function as an integral must be nonnegative. This is because the integral represents the area under the curve, so it cannot be negative. If a function has a negative maximum value, it is not considered nonnegative and cannot be represented as an integral.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
306
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
387
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
503
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
543
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
281
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
841
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
255
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
1K
Back
Top