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 am having trouble with the following problem:

$f:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ is a measurable function such that for all $a$: $$\int_{[0,a]}f\,dm=0.$$ Prove that $f=0$ for $m$ almost every $x$ (here $m$ is the Lebesgue measure).

I have no problem proving this for $f$ non-negative, or under the assumption that $f$ is integrable. But the question only assumes that $f$ is measurable and no more.

My idea was the usual thing; we look at the set of points where $f$ is positive and negative and assume one of these has measure greater than zero. Then I wanted to estimate one of these by an open set, look at the integral on the open set and show that it had to be greater than zero, a contradiction. But a key part of this attack is the assumption of the absolute continuity of the integral, which only holds in the case where $f$ is integrable.

Alternatively, if it were integrable one could simply estimate $f$ by a continuous function, where the result is quite obvious.

Ultimately we are going to show that $f$ is integrable, but it is not clear to me how to show this before showing it is zero a.e. So there must be a simpler way. Does anyone have suggestions?

share|improve this question
    
Do you mean to integrate over $[0,a]$? Otherwise one can take $f(x)=1$ for $x<0$ and $f(x)=0$ for $x\geq0$. Then the hypothesis is true while the conclusion fails. –  Clayton Jan 9 '13 at 19:55
    
It says for all $a$, which I take to mean the interval $[a,0]$ when $a<0$ and $[0,a]$ when $a>0$. –  rondo9 Jan 9 '13 at 19:57
    
I see. I took it to mean $\varnothing$ for $a<0$. I'll consider what you've said, though. –  Clayton Jan 9 '13 at 19:58
    
Is the function assumed locally integrable? –  Davide Giraudo Jan 9 '13 at 20:34
    
The assumptions are only that it is measurable and that its integral vanishes on intervals. –  rondo9 Jan 9 '13 at 20:42

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

The function $f$ must be integrable (one of $\int f^+$ or $\int f^-$ is finite) in order for the symbol $\int f$ to be defined. So, I'll assume this is the case. In fact, then, since $\int_0^a f$ exists and is finite for any $a$, it follows that $\int_c^d |f|<\infty$ for any numbers $c$, $d$.

We show $f$ is almost everywhere $0$ on any interval $[c,d]$; this will imply the desired result.

Suppose $f>0$ on the set of positive measure $E\subset[c,d]$. Choose a closed subset $F$ of $E$ with positive measure. We then have $\int_F f>0$. Now let $U=[c,d]\setminus F$. As $U$ is open, we may write $U$ as a disjoint union of open intervals: $U=\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty (a_k,b_k)$.

Now, since $\int_c^d |f|<\infty$ $$ 0=\int_{[c,d]}f=\sum_{k=1}^\infty\int_{a_k}^{b_k}f+\int_F f. $$ Since $\int_F f>0$, it follows that $\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty\int_{a_k}^{b_k}f$ is negative. But then $\int_{a_n}^{b_n} f$ must be negative for some $n$. However, this proves untenable upon observing that $$ \int_{a_n}^{b_n} f =\int_0^{b_n} f - \int_0^{a_n} f =0. $$

Similarly, one can show $f$ cannot be negative on a set of positive measure.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks! I was totally overlooking that it IS locally integrable for the question to even mean anything. –  rondo9 Jan 10 '13 at 0:00

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.