Upper function and lebesgue integrals

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter travis0868
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Integrals
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the classification of constant functions as upper functions in the context of Lebesgue integrals, specifically referencing Theorem 10.6(b) and Theorem 10.14(a) from Apostol's Mathematical Analysis. It is established that constant functions do fit the definition of upper functions as per Definition 10.4, allowing them to be included in the set of Lebesgue integrable functions L(I). However, the participant identifies a critical distinction regarding the treatment of constants in Theorem 10.6(b), where the constant must be non-negative, leading to a logical inconsistency when applying Theorem 10.14(a) to all real constants. The conclusion emphasizes the necessity of correctly positioning the negative sign in integrals involving upper functions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue integration and its properties.
  • Familiarity with the definitions of upper functions and Lebesgue integrable functions.
  • Knowledge of Theorems 10.6(b) and 10.14(a) from Apostol's Mathematical Analysis.
  • Basic concepts of real-valued functions and their integration.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Theorem 10.6(b) on the properties of upper functions.
  • Explore the nuances of Lebesgue integrability and its definitions in Apostol's Mathematical Analysis.
  • Investigate examples of constant functions within the framework of upper functions and their integrals.
  • Review the conditions under which Theorem 10.14(a) applies to various types of functions.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and researchers focusing on real analysis, particularly those studying Lebesgue integration and its foundational theorems.

travis0868
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I am comparing theorem 10.6(c) and 10.14(a) in Apostol's Mathematical Analysis.

My question is this:

Are constant functions considered upper functions? They certainly seem to fit the definition 10.4 for upper functions:

A real-valued function f defined on an interval I is called an upper function on I, and we write [itex]f \in U(I)[/itex], if there exists an increasing sequence of step functions [itex]{s_n}[/itex] such that:
[tex] a)\ s_n \nearrow\ f\ a.e.\ on\ I,[/tex]
and
[tex] b)\ \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \int_\textrm{I} s_n \is\ finite.[/tex]

There there's definition 10.12 for Lebesgue integrable functions:

We denote by L(I) the set of all functions f of the form f = u - v where [itex]u\in U(I)[/itex] and [itex]v\in U(I)[/itex]. Each function f in L(I) is said to be Lebesgue-integrable on I and its integral is defined by the equation [itex]\int_\textrm{I} f = \int_\textrm{I} u - \int_\textrm{I} v[/itex]

Here's thm 10.14(a):

[tex]Assume\ f \in L(I)\ and\ g \in L(I).\ Then\ we\ have\ (af + bg) \in L(I)\ for\ every\ real\ a\ and\ b\ \int_\textrm{I} (af + bg) = a \int_\textrm{I} f + b \int_\textrm{I} g.[/tex]

Assuming that a constant function is an upper function, let v = 0. Choose some arbitrary upper function u. Let f = u - 0 and thus f is a member of L(I). Then [itex]\int_\textrm{I} f = \int_\textrm{I} u[/itex]. By thm 10.14, [itex]\int_\textrm{I} -f = - \int_\textrm{I} f[/itex]. Thus [itex]\int_\textrm{I} -f = - \int_\textrm{I} u.[/itex]

But it is not always true that

integral -u = - integral u

when u is an upper function according to Thm 10.6(b):

[tex]Assume\ f \in U(I)\ and\ g \in U(I).\ Then:\ cf \in U(I)\ for\ ever\ constant\ c \geq 0\ and \int_\textrm{I} cf = c \int_\textrm{I} f[/tex]

Notice that c must be >= 0. There's even a problem in the text that shows that thm 10.6(b) isn't always true if that assumption is violated.

My point is that if constant functions are allowed as upper functions, then thm 10.14(a) implies thm 10.6(b) should be true for all real c, not just non-negative c. Any thoughts on where my logic is wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I see my mistake. A constant is an upper function, but:

if u [itex]\in U(I)[/itex] and f = u. Then f [itex]\in L(I)[/itex]. But [itex]\int -f = - \int u[/itex]. The negative must be on the outside of the integral sign for u.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K