Prove that $lim_{nrightarrow infty} int_{[-n,n]} f,dlambda= int f,dlambda.$











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I am working on the following exercise:




Let $lambda$ denote Lebesgue measure on $mathbf{R}$. Suppose
$f:mathbf{R}rightarrow mathbf{R}$ is a Borel measurable function
such that $int|f|<infty$. Prove that $$lim_{nrightarrow infty}
int_{[-n,n]} f,dlambda= int f,dlambda.$$




Now, I have some ideas as to things that could help me here, but I can't really put any of it together. Here is what I have so far:






  1. I know that, given a measure space $(X,mathcal{S},mu)$, a set $Ein mathcal{S}$, and an $mathcal{S}$-measurable function $f$, $$int_E f,dmu=int fchi_{E},dmu$$ if the RHS is defined. In this case, I believe it is, since $int |f|<infty$.


  2. Then this question got me thinking: what if I write $[-n,n]$ as the limit of an increasing sequence of sets? That is, can I write $E=[-n,n]=bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n$ where $E_n=[-n,n]$ for $ninmathbf{N}$?


  3. If (2) is true, then I can define $f_n=fchi_{E_n}$ and $$lim_{nrightarrowinfty}f_n=fchi_E.$$ Then I think I would have my answer by the Dominated Convergence Theorem.





Am I on the right track here?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Yes, and you're pretty much done.
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 19 at 0:54










  • @T.Bongers Really? Well that is certainly a relief. If I may ask an additional question in regards to my second step. Did I set that up right? For whatever reason I am having a hard time convincing myself that what I wrote is true, i.e. that $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=[-n,n]$. I tried drawing a picture, but it made me think -- shouldn't $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=(-infty,infty)$?
    – Thy Art is Math
    Nov 19 at 0:59








  • 1




    It is $(-infty, infty)$, but don't you want it to be? You're integrating over $mathbb{R}$.
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 19 at 1:28










  • Ah, that makes sense! Thanks!
    – Thy Art is Math
    Nov 19 at 1:40















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I am working on the following exercise:




Let $lambda$ denote Lebesgue measure on $mathbf{R}$. Suppose
$f:mathbf{R}rightarrow mathbf{R}$ is a Borel measurable function
such that $int|f|<infty$. Prove that $$lim_{nrightarrow infty}
int_{[-n,n]} f,dlambda= int f,dlambda.$$




Now, I have some ideas as to things that could help me here, but I can't really put any of it together. Here is what I have so far:






  1. I know that, given a measure space $(X,mathcal{S},mu)$, a set $Ein mathcal{S}$, and an $mathcal{S}$-measurable function $f$, $$int_E f,dmu=int fchi_{E},dmu$$ if the RHS is defined. In this case, I believe it is, since $int |f|<infty$.


  2. Then this question got me thinking: what if I write $[-n,n]$ as the limit of an increasing sequence of sets? That is, can I write $E=[-n,n]=bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n$ where $E_n=[-n,n]$ for $ninmathbf{N}$?


  3. If (2) is true, then I can define $f_n=fchi_{E_n}$ and $$lim_{nrightarrowinfty}f_n=fchi_E.$$ Then I think I would have my answer by the Dominated Convergence Theorem.





Am I on the right track here?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Yes, and you're pretty much done.
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 19 at 0:54










  • @T.Bongers Really? Well that is certainly a relief. If I may ask an additional question in regards to my second step. Did I set that up right? For whatever reason I am having a hard time convincing myself that what I wrote is true, i.e. that $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=[-n,n]$. I tried drawing a picture, but it made me think -- shouldn't $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=(-infty,infty)$?
    – Thy Art is Math
    Nov 19 at 0:59








  • 1




    It is $(-infty, infty)$, but don't you want it to be? You're integrating over $mathbb{R}$.
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 19 at 1:28










  • Ah, that makes sense! Thanks!
    – Thy Art is Math
    Nov 19 at 1:40













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I am working on the following exercise:




Let $lambda$ denote Lebesgue measure on $mathbf{R}$. Suppose
$f:mathbf{R}rightarrow mathbf{R}$ is a Borel measurable function
such that $int|f|<infty$. Prove that $$lim_{nrightarrow infty}
int_{[-n,n]} f,dlambda= int f,dlambda.$$




Now, I have some ideas as to things that could help me here, but I can't really put any of it together. Here is what I have so far:






  1. I know that, given a measure space $(X,mathcal{S},mu)$, a set $Ein mathcal{S}$, and an $mathcal{S}$-measurable function $f$, $$int_E f,dmu=int fchi_{E},dmu$$ if the RHS is defined. In this case, I believe it is, since $int |f|<infty$.


  2. Then this question got me thinking: what if I write $[-n,n]$ as the limit of an increasing sequence of sets? That is, can I write $E=[-n,n]=bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n$ where $E_n=[-n,n]$ for $ninmathbf{N}$?


  3. If (2) is true, then I can define $f_n=fchi_{E_n}$ and $$lim_{nrightarrowinfty}f_n=fchi_E.$$ Then I think I would have my answer by the Dominated Convergence Theorem.





Am I on the right track here?










share|cite|improve this question













I am working on the following exercise:




Let $lambda$ denote Lebesgue measure on $mathbf{R}$. Suppose
$f:mathbf{R}rightarrow mathbf{R}$ is a Borel measurable function
such that $int|f|<infty$. Prove that $$lim_{nrightarrow infty}
int_{[-n,n]} f,dlambda= int f,dlambda.$$




Now, I have some ideas as to things that could help me here, but I can't really put any of it together. Here is what I have so far:






  1. I know that, given a measure space $(X,mathcal{S},mu)$, a set $Ein mathcal{S}$, and an $mathcal{S}$-measurable function $f$, $$int_E f,dmu=int fchi_{E},dmu$$ if the RHS is defined. In this case, I believe it is, since $int |f|<infty$.


  2. Then this question got me thinking: what if I write $[-n,n]$ as the limit of an increasing sequence of sets? That is, can I write $E=[-n,n]=bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n$ where $E_n=[-n,n]$ for $ninmathbf{N}$?


  3. If (2) is true, then I can define $f_n=fchi_{E_n}$ and $$lim_{nrightarrowinfty}f_n=fchi_E.$$ Then I think I would have my answer by the Dominated Convergence Theorem.





Am I on the right track here?







real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 19 at 0:52









Thy Art is Math

479211




479211








  • 1




    Yes, and you're pretty much done.
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 19 at 0:54










  • @T.Bongers Really? Well that is certainly a relief. If I may ask an additional question in regards to my second step. Did I set that up right? For whatever reason I am having a hard time convincing myself that what I wrote is true, i.e. that $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=[-n,n]$. I tried drawing a picture, but it made me think -- shouldn't $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=(-infty,infty)$?
    – Thy Art is Math
    Nov 19 at 0:59








  • 1




    It is $(-infty, infty)$, but don't you want it to be? You're integrating over $mathbb{R}$.
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 19 at 1:28










  • Ah, that makes sense! Thanks!
    – Thy Art is Math
    Nov 19 at 1:40














  • 1




    Yes, and you're pretty much done.
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 19 at 0:54










  • @T.Bongers Really? Well that is certainly a relief. If I may ask an additional question in regards to my second step. Did I set that up right? For whatever reason I am having a hard time convincing myself that what I wrote is true, i.e. that $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=[-n,n]$. I tried drawing a picture, but it made me think -- shouldn't $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=(-infty,infty)$?
    – Thy Art is Math
    Nov 19 at 0:59








  • 1




    It is $(-infty, infty)$, but don't you want it to be? You're integrating over $mathbb{R}$.
    – T. Bongers
    Nov 19 at 1:28










  • Ah, that makes sense! Thanks!
    – Thy Art is Math
    Nov 19 at 1:40








1




1




Yes, and you're pretty much done.
– T. Bongers
Nov 19 at 0:54




Yes, and you're pretty much done.
– T. Bongers
Nov 19 at 0:54












@T.Bongers Really? Well that is certainly a relief. If I may ask an additional question in regards to my second step. Did I set that up right? For whatever reason I am having a hard time convincing myself that what I wrote is true, i.e. that $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=[-n,n]$. I tried drawing a picture, but it made me think -- shouldn't $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=(-infty,infty)$?
– Thy Art is Math
Nov 19 at 0:59






@T.Bongers Really? Well that is certainly a relief. If I may ask an additional question in regards to my second step. Did I set that up right? For whatever reason I am having a hard time convincing myself that what I wrote is true, i.e. that $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=[-n,n]$. I tried drawing a picture, but it made me think -- shouldn't $bigcup_{n=1}^infty E_n=(-infty,infty)$?
– Thy Art is Math
Nov 19 at 0:59






1




1




It is $(-infty, infty)$, but don't you want it to be? You're integrating over $mathbb{R}$.
– T. Bongers
Nov 19 at 1:28




It is $(-infty, infty)$, but don't you want it to be? You're integrating over $mathbb{R}$.
– T. Bongers
Nov 19 at 1:28












Ah, that makes sense! Thanks!
– Thy Art is Math
Nov 19 at 1:40




Ah, that makes sense! Thanks!
– Thy Art is Math
Nov 19 at 1:40










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Your proof is fine as-is.





For an alternative proof, you could apply the monotone convergence theorem to the sequences $f^+ chi_{E_n}$ and $f^{-} chi_{E_n}$ separately.






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004361%2fprove-that-lim-n-rightarrow-infty-int-n-n-f-d-lambda-int-f-d-lamb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    Your proof is fine as-is.





    For an alternative proof, you could apply the monotone convergence theorem to the sequences $f^+ chi_{E_n}$ and $f^{-} chi_{E_n}$ separately.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      Your proof is fine as-is.





      For an alternative proof, you could apply the monotone convergence theorem to the sequences $f^+ chi_{E_n}$ and $f^{-} chi_{E_n}$ separately.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted






        Your proof is fine as-is.





        For an alternative proof, you could apply the monotone convergence theorem to the sequences $f^+ chi_{E_n}$ and $f^{-} chi_{E_n}$ separately.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Your proof is fine as-is.





        For an alternative proof, you could apply the monotone convergence theorem to the sequences $f^+ chi_{E_n}$ and $f^{-} chi_{E_n}$ separately.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        answered Nov 19 at 0:54


























        community wiki





        T. Bongers































            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004361%2fprove-that-lim-n-rightarrow-infty-int-n-n-f-d-lambda-int-f-d-lamb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?