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.

Let $(X, \mathcal{B}, \mu)$ be a measure space and $f$ a measurable function on $X$ and suppose that $\forall E \in \mathcal{B}$ we have that $\int_E f = 0$. Then I want to show that $f = 0$ almost everywhere (a.e.).

  1. Suppose for sake of contradiction that $f \ne 0$ a.e.
  2. Then $\not\exists E \in \mathcal{B}$ s.t. $\mu(E) = 0$ and $f(x) = 0$, $\forall x \in X - E$
  3. Then $\{x : f(x) \ne 0\} = A$ is not measure zero so that either $\mu(A) > 0$ or $A \notin \mathcal{B}$.

  4. Now if $\mu(A) > 0$ then it is easy to see that $\int_A f \ne 0$ so that we have a contradiction of our original hypothesis that $\forall E \in \mathcal{B}, \int_E f = 0$.

  5. But if on the other hand $A \notin \mathcal{B}$, I cannot no longer appeal to $\int_A f \ne 0$ since $\int_A f$ is non-sense. So I'm having trouble with this part of the argument.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

Arguing by contradiction definitely works, here's the idea.

Let $\mu(\{ x : f(x) \neq 0 \}) > 0$.

Then we have $\{x : f(x) \neq 0\} = \{x : f(x) > 0\} \cup \{x : f(x) < 0\}$, so we must have one of these two sets have positive measure.

Let's say its the first one (the argument for the second is analogous).

Then $\{x : f(x) > 0\} = \bigcup \{ x : f(x) \geq \frac{1}{n}\} = \bigcup E_n$ so again one of these must have positive measure.

So say $E_k$ has positive measure, then $f$ dominates $\frac{1}{k}$ on $E_k$ so $$\int_{E_k} f \geq \int_{E_k} \frac{1}{k} = \mu(E_k)\frac{1}{k} > 0.$$ So we have a contradiction.

EDIT: also, to comment on your proof: as you see here we don't need to deal with whether or not $A$ is measurable, it definitely is. And also, for step $4$ of your proof $\mu(A) > 0$ does not imply that $\int_A f \neq 0$ for example if $f = 1_{(0,1)} - 1_{(-1,0)}$

share|improve this answer
add comment

The set $\{x:f(x)\neq 0\}$ is the same as $f^{-1}\big((-\infty,0)\big)\cup f^{-1}\big((0,\infty)\big)$ and therefore measurable. So the issue in 5. never occurs.

And I think you should be more explicit in step 4.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.