Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have difficulty interpreting the following question:

If the simple function $\phi$ in $M^{+}(X,\mathcal{A})$ has the (not necessarily standard) representation $$\phi=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{n}b_k\chi_{F_k}$$ where $b_k \in \mathbb{R}$ and $F_k \in \mathcal{A}$, show that

$$\int \phi \mathrm{d}\mu = \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{n}b_k\mu({F_k}).$$

We know that a simple function $\phi$ is of $\bf{standard \;\;representation}$ if

$$\phi=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_k\chi_{E_k}$$ where $a_k$ are distinct and $E_j$ are disjoint nonempty subsets of $X$. Moreover, its integral is of the form $$\int \phi \mathrm{d}\mu = \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_k\mu({E_k}).$$

Is the question stating that the integral will hold for $\phi$ where $b_k$ are not distinct and where $F_k$ are not disjoint? I would like to say that this will hold when $b_k$ are not distinct, but I do not think this will hold if $F_k$ are not disjoint sets.

share|improve this question
1  
See Lemma 11.4 in Aliprantis-Border, p.405 - they give similar proof as Davide. (This page does not display for me in Google books, but maybe you'll have better luck.) –  Martin Sleziak Apr 1 '12 at 10:07
    
(Originally an answer; transforming into comment now that I have enough reputation.) It also holds when the $F_k$ are not disjoint; of course in that case we must have $a_k \neq b_k$. For example $\phi = \chi_{[0,1]}$ can have non-standard representations $\chi_{[0,1/2)} + \chi_{[1/2, 1]}$ (disjoint $F_k$ but non-distinct $b_k$'s) and $\frac{1}{3}\chi_{[0,1]} + \frac{2}{3}\chi_{[0,1]}$ (distinct $b_k$'s but overlapping $F_k$). –  lazyhaze Apr 1 '12 at 20:05

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

In fact, it holds even if the $F_j$ are not disjoint and even if the $b_j$ are not distinct. First, we show that if $\{S_1,\ldots,S_N\}$ is a partition of $X$ with $S_j$ measurable and $(b_1,\ldots,b_N)\in\mathbb R^N$, not necessary disjoint, we have $$\int \sum_{j=1}^Nb_j\chi_{S_j}d\mu=\sum_{j=1}^Nb_j\mu(S_j).$$ Indeed, let $\sum_{k=1}^na_k\chi_{T_k}$ the standard representation of $\sum_{j=1}^Nb_j\chi_{S_j}$. We have \begin{align*} \sum_{j=1}^Nb_j\mu(S_j)&=\sum_{j=1}^Nb_j\mu(S_j\cap\bigcup_{k=1}^nT_k)\\ &=\sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{k=1}^nb_j\mu(S_j\cap T_k)\\ &=\sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{k=1}^na_k\mu(S_j\cap T_k)\\ &=\sum_{k=1}^na_k\mu(T_k), \end{align*} since if $S_j\cap T_k$ is not empty, we take $x$ in it and its value for the two functions is respectively $b_j$ and $a_k$.

Now we can show that for two simple functions, the integral of the sum is the sum of the integral. Let $f=\sum_{j=1}^{n_1}c_j^{(1)}\chi_{S_j^{(1)}}$ and $g=\sum_{k=1}^{n_2}c_k^{(2)}\chi_{S_j^{(2)}}$ written in their standard representation. Let $I_1:=\{1,\ldots,n_1\}$ and $I_2:=\{1,\ldots,n_2\}$. Then $f+g$ can be written as $$\sum_{j\in I_1}\sum_{k\in I_2}(c_j^{(1)}+c_k^{(2)}) \chi_{S_j^{(1)}}\chi_{S_k^{(2)}}.$$ It may not be the standard representation but it doesn't matter thanks to the previous result. We have \begin{align*} \int (f+g)d\mu&=\sum_{j\in I_1}\sum_{k\in I_2}(c_j^{(1)}+c_k^{(2)})\mu(S_j^{(1)}\cap S_k^{(2)})\\ &=\sum_{j\in I_1}\sum_{k\in I_2}c_j^{(1)}\mu(S_j^{(1)}\cap S_k^{(2)})+\sum_{j\in I_1}\sum_{k\in I_2}c_k^{(2)}\mu(S_j^{(1)}\cap S_k^{(2)})\\ &=\sum_{j\in I_1}c_j^{(1)}\mu(S_j^{(1)})+\sum_{k\in I_2}c_k^{(2)}\mu(S_k^{(2)}), \end{align*} since $\{S_j^{(1)}\}_{j=1}^{n_1}$ and $\{S_k^{(2)}\}_{k=1}^{n_2}$ are partitions of $X$.

Now to see the result, just use an induction.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.