# Limit at infinity of a uniformly continuous integrable function [duplicate]

This is an exercise from Berkeley preliminary exams, Fall 1983

Let $f : [0, \infty ) \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \$ be a uniformly continuous function with the property that

$\lim_{b \to \infty}\int_{0}^{b} f(x)dx \$

exists (as a finite limit). Show that

$\lim_{x \to \infty}f(x) = 0$

Obviously if the limit exists, it must be $0 \$; so the problem is to prove that the limit exists. Any hint ?

-

## marked as duplicate by Rudy the Reindeer, Benjamin Lim, Ilya, J. M., Brian M. ScottMay 3 '12 at 8:14

Are you sure that the last limit is for $x \to 0$? I guess it should be $x \to +\infty$. – Giuseppe Negro Mar 25 '12 at 10:18
This is Barbalat's Lemma. A solution can be found here: mathproblems123.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/barbalats-lemma And the last limit should be with $x \to \infty$, because changing the function near $0$ such that it still remains uniformly continuous does not affect the converge of the integral limit. – Beni Bogosel Mar 25 '12 at 10:24
@BeniBogosel: You required $f$ to be positive ($f \colon [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$) but this hypothesis is absent here. While your argument pushes through if $f \in L^1([0, \infty))$, I'm afraid it doesn't work if $f$ is allowed to change sign and $\int \lvert f(x)\rvert\, dx=+\infty$. – Giuseppe Negro Mar 25 '12 at 10:35
@Giuseppe Negro: I have edited – WLOG Mar 25 '12 at 11:10
@GiuseppeNegro: I know that the hypothesis is $f$ positive in my proof, but the proof does not make use of that hypothesis anywhere but in the place I say that $f(x_n) \to \ell > 0$, which can be assumed WLOG here (the idea is that we assume that there exists a sequence $x_n \to \infty$ such that $f(x_n)$ does not converge to zero). The proof works just fine if you assume that $f(x_n) \to \ell<0$. – Beni Bogosel Mar 25 '12 at 12:04

Suppose that $\lim_{x\to \infty} f(x)$ doesn't exist. Then there is an $\epsilon > 0$ and a sequence $x_n \to \infty$ such that $|f(x_n)| > \epsilon$ for all $n$ (because the limit, if existing, has to be 0). By uniform continuity there is a $\delta > 0$ such that $|f(x) - f(y)| < \frac{\epsilon}2$ if $|x-y| < \delta$. It follows that $|f(x)| > \frac{\epsilon}2$ if $|x-x_n| < \delta$ for some $n$. But now $|\int_{x_n-\delta}^{x_n+\delta} f(x)\, dx| > \epsilon\delta$ for all $n$ contradicting $\int_a^b f(x)\,dx \to 0$ for $a,b \to \infty$.
I have the same objection I had in comments to the main post: this argument certainly works if $f$ is non-negative, or if it is $L^1$, but I'm afraid it doesn't if $f$ is allowed to change sign and $\int \lvert f \rvert\, dx=+\infty$. Do you agree? – Giuseppe Negro Mar 25 '12 at 10:38
@GiuseppeNegro Why? If $\int_0^\infty f(x) \,dx$ exists as in inproper integral, we need to have $\int_a^b f(x) \, dx \to 0$ for $a, b\to \infty$, which yields that there is an $M$ such that $|\int_a^b f(x)\, dx| < \epsilon\delta$ for all $a,b \ge M$. But now I can choose $x_n$ with $x_n - \delta > M$. I don't see where I could have used $f \in L^1$. – martini Mar 25 '12 at 10:44
Oh yes, yes, you're right. The fact that $\int_a^bf(x)\, dx \to 0$ is certainly true and you argument contradicts it. I had mistakenly seen a contradiction with $\int\lvert f(x)\rvert \, dx <+\infty$. Thank you for clarifying! – Giuseppe Negro Mar 25 '12 at 15:09
@martini Did you mean "Suppose that $$\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x) \neq 0$$" in your first sentence? – Rudy the Reindeer May 2 '12 at 20:56
@MattN. As I wrote in the paratheses: If the limit exists, it has to be 0, for if it is $c > 0$ (wlog) say, then we would have $f(x) > \frac c2$ for $x \ge N$ ($N$ choosen properly) and $\int_0^\infty f(x)\, dx$ would diverge. – martini May 2 '12 at 20:58