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 the following question:

Let $X$: $\mu(X)<\infty$, and let $f \geq 0$ on $X$. Prove that $f$ is Lebesgue integrable on $X$ if and only if $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2^n \mu(\lbrace x \in X : f(x) \geq 2^n \rbrace) < \infty $.

I have the following ideas, but am a little unsure. For the forward direction:

By our hypothesis, we are taking $f$ to be Lebesgue integrable. Assume $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2^n \mu(\lbrace x \in X : f(x) \geq 2^n \rbrace) = \infty $. Then for any n, no matter how large, $\mu(\lbrace x \in X : f(x) \geq 2^n \rbrace)$ has positive measure. Otherwise, the sum will terminate for a certain $N$, giving us $\sum_{n=0}^{N}2^n \mu(\lbrace x \in X : f(x) \geq 2^n \rbrace) < \infty $. Thus we have $f$ unbounded on a set of positive measure, which in combination with $f(x) \geq 0$, gives us that $\int_E f(x) d\mu=\infty$. This is a contradiction to $f$ being Lebesgue integrable. So our summation must be finite.

For the reverse direction:

We have that $\sum_{n=0}^{N}2^n \mu(\lbrace x \in X : f(x) \geq 2^n \rbrace) < \infty \\$. Assume that $f$ is not Lebesgue integrable, then we have $\int_E f(x) d\mu=\infty$. Since we are integrating over a finite set $X$, then this means that $f(x)$ must be unbounded on a set of positive measure, which makes our summation infinite, a contradiction.

Any thoughts as to the validity of my proof? I feel as if there is an easier, direct way to do it.

share|improve this question
    
Regarding the first implication of your proof: I think this works. But I might be missing something. –  Matt N. Aug 14 '12 at 19:51
1  
Sorry but the proofs of both implications are flawed. Forward: integrable does not imply bounded. Reverse: not integrable does not imply infinite on a set of positive measure. –  Did Aug 14 '12 at 21:46
    
To be precise, the first proof offered only wanted $\textit{integrable}$ to imply $\textit{essentially bounded}$. Of course the implication still fails. –  Kevin Carlson Aug 15 '12 at 0:31

5 Answers 5

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The fact that the summation is infinite does not mean that it does not converge, consider $f(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt x}$ on $[0,1]$. It is integrable, yet clearly the summation is not finite in this case: it is $\sum_n 2^n\cdot 2^{-2n}=2<\infty$.

Put $A_n:=\{ x\vert f(x)\geq 2^n\},B_n:=A_n\setminus A_{n+1},a_n=\mu(A_n)$. Then define $h_1=\sum_n2^{n+1}\chi_{B_n}$. Except for the points where $f<1$ or $f=\infty$ (which are resolved easily), we have $h_1/2\leq f\leq h_1$, so if $f$ is not infinite on a set of positive measure, $f$ is integrable iff $h_1$ is.

On the other hand, $$\int f\leq \int h_1=2\sum_{n\geq 0} 2^n(a_n-a_{n+1})\leq 2\sum_n 2^n a_n$$

Edit2: Instead, take a look at $h_2:=\sum_n 2^{n-1}\chi_{A_n}$. Then for each $x\in B_n$ we have that $h_2(x)\leq \sum_{j\leq n}2^{j-1}<2^n\leq f(x)$, and $h_2\leq f$ almost everywhere, so if $f$ is integrable, $h_2$ is too. Then: $$\int h_2=\sum_n 2^{n-1}\mu(A_n)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_n 2^n\mu(A_n)$$ so $\sum_n 2^n\mu(A_n)$ converges and we're done.

share|improve this answer
    
Excellent! This really helped me understand the problem quite well. Thank you! –  Frank White Aug 14 '12 at 20:35
    
Yeah, I was just noticing that. Dang. –  Frank White Aug 14 '12 at 21:11
    
@AllenCox: I think I managed to circumvent the problem. :) –  tomasz Aug 14 '12 at 21:32
    
I'm a little confused on how the intersections of $A_n$ having zero measure gives us $h_2 \leq f$ a.e. Don't we get that anyway based on how $h_2$ is defined? –  Frank White Aug 14 '12 at 21:46
    
@AllenCox: right, I overthought that part. :) in the intersection both $h_2$ and $f$ are infinite, so it's okay. –  tomasz Aug 14 '12 at 21:49

$$\frac12\left(1+\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}2^n\,\mathbf 1_{f\geqslant2^n}\right)\leqslant f\lt1+\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}2^n\,\mathbf 1_{f\geqslant2^n}$$

share|improve this answer
    
Excellent! Why didn't I think of that? –  Byron Schmuland Aug 14 '12 at 21:43
    
@Byron: Thanks. Dunno... :-) –  Did Aug 14 '12 at 21:47

Hint: Switching the order of integration gives $$\int_X f(x)\,\mu(dx)=\int_X \int_0^{f(x)}\,dt\,\mu(dx) =\int_0^\infty \mu(x: f(x)>t)\,dt$$ This equation is true whether the two sides are finite or infinite.

Since $G(t):= \mu(x: f(x)>t)$ is decreasing, we have $$G(2^{n+1}) \int_{2^n}^{2^{n+1}}\,dt \leq \int_{2^n}^{2^{n+1}} G(t) \,dt \leq G(2^n) \int_{2^n}^{2^{n+1}}\,dt$$ and hence $\int_0^\infty G(t)\,dt<\infty$ if and only if $\sum_{n=0}^\infty 2^n G(2^n)<\infty.$

Also, see did's answer here.

share|improve this answer

Let $E_n = \lbrace x \in X : 2^n \leq f(x) < 2^{n+1} \rbrace$. Let $F = \lbrace x \in X : f(x) < 1 \rbrace$. Then $X$ is a disjoint union of $F$ and $E_n$, $n = 0,1,\dots$. Hence $\int_X f(x) d\mu = \int_F f(x) d\mu + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \int_{E_n} f(x) d\mu$.

Let $G_n = \lbrace x \in X : f(x) \geq 2^n \rbrace$. Then $E_n = G_n - G_{n+1}$. Let $m_n = \mu(G_n)$. Since $\mu(E_n) = \mu(G_n - G_{n+1}) = m_n - m_{n+1}$, $2^n(m_n - m_{n+1}) \leq \int_{E_n} f(x) d\mu \leq 2^{n+1}(m_n - m_{n+1})$. Hence

$\int_F f(x) d\mu + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^n(m_n - m_{n+1}) \leq \int_X f(x) d\mu \leq \int_F f(x) d\mu + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^{n+1}(m_n - m_{n+1})$

Let $s = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^n m_n$. Suppose $f$ is integrable. By the above left inequality, $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^n(m_n - m_{n+1}) < \infty$. Since $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^n(m_n - m_{n+1}) = m_0 + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^n m_{n+1} = m_0 + (\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^{n+1} m_{n+1})/2 < \infty$, $s < \infty$.

Conversely suppose $s< \infty$. Note that $\int_F f(x) d\mu < \infty$. By the above right inequality, $\int_X f(x) d\mu \leq \int_F f(x) d\mu + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^{n+1}(m_n - m_{n+1}) = \int_F f(x) d\mu + 2m_0 + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^{n+1} m_{n+1} = \int_F f(x) d\mu + m_0 + s < \infty$.

share|improve this answer
    
I do not understand how $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}2^nA=2A<\infty$. This seems to be an error. –  Frank White Aug 14 '12 at 18:54
    
You are right. I will edit my answer using the idea of the latter part of my answer. –  Makoto Kato Aug 14 '12 at 19:04
    
What do you think of my proof? –  Makoto Kato Aug 15 '12 at 19:06
    
Well, it's essentially the same proof as tomasz's but with different notation, is it not? –  Frank White Aug 15 '12 at 19:35
    
Actually I haven't read his proof. I posted an answer quite early, you know. There was a stupid error as you pointed out, but the basic idea was the same as the current one. –  Makoto Kato Aug 15 '12 at 20:00

This won't quite do. Your argument doesn't actually use the $2^n$ at all: it would read exactly the same if we asked only for $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\mu(\{x \in X: f(x) \geq 2^n\}) < \infty$. Yet $\frac{1}{x}$ satisfies this weaker hypothesis on $[0,1]$: the infinite sum becomes $\sum_{i=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2^i}=2$, while we know the integral diverges. See if you can try a similar approach that explicitly uses the exponential decay of the measure of sets on which $f$ is big.

share|improve this answer
    
What do you mean by using the exponential decay on the measure of the sets? Should the sets have some sort of known bound? –  Frank White Aug 14 '12 at 18:29
    
Just that since the sum of products of an exponentially growing quantity with the measures of the sets above $2^n$ was finite, we'd better have the latter measures shrink faster than $2^{-n}$, which I referred to as "exponential(ly)". –  Kevin Carlson Aug 15 '12 at 0:29

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.