Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ be a measurable space and $(\omega_k)_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ a sequence of elements of $\Omega$. Let $$ \mathcal{M}:=\left\{\sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k\cdot\delta_{\omega_k}: \quad(a_k)_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\subset(0,+\infty),\quad \sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k=1\right\}, $$ where $\delta_{\omega_k}$ denotes the point mass at $\omega_k$. Let $f:\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a measurable function and denote by $\mathcal{N}$ the set of measures $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ with respect to which $f$ is $\mu$-integrable. Assume $\mathcal{N}\neq\emptyset$. If $\vert f\vert$ is bounded, then we have the following implication: $$ \forall \mu\in\mathcal{N}\qquad\int_{\Omega} fd\mu\geq 0\Rightarrow \forall \omega\in\Omega:f(\omega)\geq 0.$$ But is it also necessary to have $\vert f\vert$ bounded, or can one weaken this condition?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

If $|f|$ is not bounded, then $\int_{\Omega} f d \mu$ might not be well defined. Keep in mind that if $\mu= \sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k\cdot\delta_{\omega_k}$ then

$$\int_{\Omega} f d \mu= \sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k\cdot f(\omega_k) \,.$$

Too see that you cannot drop the bounedndess, if $f$ is unbounded, for each $k$ pick some $\omega_k$ so that $|f(\omega_k)| > 2^k$, and set $\mu = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{2^{k+1}}\cdot\delta_{\omega_k}$.

Then $\int_{\Omega} f d \mu$ is an infinite series, each term being in absolute value at least one, and they can be positive and negative....

*P.S. * The above idea actually can be used to show that $f \in L^1(\mu) ; \forall \mu \in {\mathcal M} \Leftrightarrow |f|$ is bounded. Also, keep in mind that when you calculate the sum $ \sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k\cdot f(\omega_k) $ you must have absolute convergence, or "absolute" divergence to infinity, you cannot speak of conditional convergence because for the measure $\sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k\cdot\delta_{\omega_k}$, the order in which you list the terms doesn't matter.

The only way you could make sense of this by dropping the boundedness condition is by asking that for all $\mu \in {\mathcal M}$ you have either $f \in L^1(\mu)$ and $\int f d \mu \geq 0$ or $\int f d \mu = + \infty$. But this condition is equivalent to the negative part $f^-$ of $f$ is bounded....

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks a lot for the comment. I have changed the question in that I am assuming that f is $\mu_0$-integrable for some $\mu_0\in\mathcal{M}$. I think under this assumption, the implication still holds for $\vert f\vert$ bounded, since one can construct a measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, based on the measure $\mu_0$, which would give too much weight to the negative values of $f$ and make the integral negative... – Andy Teich Jul 4 '12 at 15:41

Your Answer


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.