Intereting Posts

Nice proofs of $\zeta(4) = \pi^4/90$?
If the set of values , for which a function has positive derivative , is dense then is the function increasing?
Clarify definitions of relation and 0-ary relation
Minkowski sum of two disks
Characterize finite dimensional algebras without nilpotent elements
Algorithms for symbolic definite integration?
Let $A, B$ be sets. Show that $\mathcal P(A ∩ B) = \mathcal P(A) ∩ \mathcal P(B)$.
Understanding implicit differentiation with concepts like “function” and “lambda abstraction.”
Is every parallelogram a rectangle ??
Algorithms for finding the multiplicative order of an element in a group of integers mod m
Introductory text for lattice theory
How to solve $\frac{2}{3\sqrt{2}}=\cos\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)$?
Chance of meeting in a bar
Is there a closed form for $\sum _{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k}H_{k-1}^2$?
Defining the integers and rationals

I am having trouble with the following problem:

$f:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ is a measurable function such that for all $a$:

$$\int_{[0,a]}f\,dm=0.$$

Prove that $f=0$ for $m$ almost every $x$ (here $m$ is the Lebesgue measure).

I have no problem proving this for $f$ non-negative, or under the assumption that $f$ is integrable. But the question only assumes that $f$ is measurable and no more.

- Is a $L^p$ function almost surely bounded a.e.?
- If $f\in S_\infty$ and $\int_{\mathbb{R}}x^pf(x)d\mu=0$ for all $p\in\mathbb{N}$ then $f\equiv 0$?
- Mollifiers: Derivative
- Prove that a set $A$ is $\mu^\star$ measurable is and only if $\mu^\star (A) = l(X) - \mu^\star(A^{c})$
- Mollifiers: Asymptotic Convergence vs. Mean Convergence
- Show that for any $g \in L_{p'}(E)$, where $p'$ is the conjugate of $p$, $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\int_Ef_k(x)g(x)dx = \int_Ef(x)g(x)dx$

My idea was the usual thing; we look at the set of points where $f$ is positive and negative and assume one of these has measure greater than zero. Then I wanted to estimate one of these by an open set, look at the integral on the open set and show that it had to be greater than zero, a contradiction. But a key part of this attack is the assumption of the absolute continuity of the integral, which only holds in the case where $f$ is integrable.

Alternatively, if it were integrable one could simply estimate $f$ by a continuous function, where the result is quite obvious.

Ultimately we are going to show that $f$ is integrable, but it is not clear to me how to show this before showing it is zero a.e. So there must be a simpler way. Does anyone have suggestions?

- A question concerning the Cantor (ternary) function
- What is the area of the apollonian gaskets?
- Thoughts about measurable functions
- Does the everywhere differentiability of $f$ imply it is absolutely continuous on a compact interval?
- Introductory measure theory textbook
- Lebesgue Measure of the Cartesian Product
- Best measure theoretic probability theory book?
- When does it make sense to define a generator of a set system?
- A question about sigma-algebras and generators
- $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty } \int_{a}^{b}g_{n}(x)\sin (2n\pi x)dx=0$ where $g_{n}$ is uniformly Lipschitz

The function $f$ must be integrable (one of $\int f^+$ or $\int f^-$ is finite) in order for the symbol $\int f$ to be defined. So, I’ll assume this is the case. In fact, then, since $\int_0^a f$ exists and is finite for any $a$, it follows that $\int_c^d |f|<\infty$ for any numbers $c$, $d$.

We show $f$ is almost everywhere

$0$ on any interval $[c,d]$; this will imply the desired result.

Suppose $f>0$ on the set of positive measure $E\subset[c,d]$. Choose a closed subset $F$ of $E$ with positive measure. We then have $\int_F f>0$. Now let $U=[c,d]\setminus F$. As $U$ is open, we may write $U$ as a disjoint union of open intervals: $U=\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty (a_k,b_k)$.

Now, since $\int_c^d |f|<\infty$

$$

0=\int_{[c,d]}f=\sum_{k=1}^\infty\int_{a_k}^{b_k}f+\int_F f.

$$

Since $\int_F f>0$, it follows that $\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty\int_{a_k}^{b_k}f$ is negative. But then $\int_{a_n}^{b_n} f$ must be negative for some $n$. However, this proves untenable upon observing that

$$

\int_{a_n}^{b_n} f =\int_0^{b_n} f – \int_0^{a_n} f =0.

$$

Similarly, one can show $f$ cannot be negative on a set of positive measure.

*Dynkin’s $\pi-\lambda$ System theorem*, as a strategic approach, works perfectly to conclude that the problem is true for all measurable sets !

Let $\mathcal{A}=$*“set of intervals”* which is a $\pi$*-system* and $\mathcal{L}=\{A\in\mathcal{F};\;\int_A f=0\}$ which is a $\lambda$*-system*. Hence,

$$\mathcal{B}=\sigma(\mathcal{A})\subseteq\mathcal{L}$$

It means for each *Borel-set* $B$ : $\displaystyle \int_B f = 0$

Now use this fact that any *measurable* set differs from a *Borel-measurable* set by a *Zero-set*.

To finish the proof, see : Showing that $f = 0 $ a.e. if for any measurable set $E$, $\int_E f = 0$

Any measurable function is uniformly approximated by continuous function on $(a, b)$. given statement is true for any continuous function and hence it is true for uniform limit of continuous functions, that is for measurable function

- Density of set of splitting primes
- Where to begin with foundations of mathematics
- How can we show that $\operatorname{ord}_{p}\left(\binom{2n}n\right) \le \frac{\log 2n}{\log p}$
- Probability of tossing a fair coin with at least $k$ consecutive heads
- When can you switch the order of limits?
- For complex matrices, if $\langle Ax,x\rangle=\langle Bx,x\rangle$ for all $x$, then $\langle Ax,y\rangle=\langle Bx,y\rangle$ for all $x$ and $y$?
- Proving that every non-negative integer has an unique binary expansion with generating functions
- A series related to $\zeta (3)$.
- Conditions for integrability
- Conditional expectation on more than one sigma-algebra
- Is ZFC not foundation of mathematics?
- Wedge product $S^1 \vee S^2$
- Non-Existence of solution in finite time
- Regulators and uniqueness
- Preserving structures