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:
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 $int |f|<infty$.
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 $ninmathbf{N}$?
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
add a comment |
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:
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 $int |f|<infty$.
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 $ninmathbf{N}$?
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
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
add a comment |
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:
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 $int |f|<infty$.
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 $ninmathbf{N}$?
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
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:
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 $int |f|<infty$.
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 $ninmathbf{N}$?
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
real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Nov 19 at 0:54
community wiki
T. Bongers
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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