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.

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 $(X, M, \mu\ )$ be a measure space. Let $f$ be a positive measurable function with $\int_X f d \mu\ < \infty\ .$ Then for every $\epsilon\ > 0$, there is a set $E \in M$ such that $\mu(E)<\infty$ and \begin{equation} \int_X f d \mu\ \leq \int_E f d \mu\ + \epsilon \end{equation}

This problem appears on Bartle's Elements of Integration and Lebesgue Measure. I couldn't prove it for the life of me. And obviously, $E$ has to be a proper subset of $X$, otherwise, this is just trivial. Any idea?

share|cite|improve this question
You must want some hypothesis on $E$ besides being proper. In an atomless space, you could just remove a point, and if the cardinality of $X$ is finite, this would be false. (E.g., if $X$ is a point, $\mu(X)=1$, and $f=1$.) Perhaps you want $\mu(E)<\infty$? – Jonas Meyer May 19 '11 at 17:56
Hmm.. I'm not sure why you're saying this would be false if $\mu\(X)<\infty$ since by monotonicity of the measure, we automatically have $\mu\(E)<\infty$ when $\mu\(X)<\infty$. – Tasadduk Chowdhury May 19 '11 at 21:44
I am not saying that. I am saying that it will typically be false that you can find a proper subset $E$ of $X$ satisfying the above condition if $X$ has a finite number of points (and no nonempty null sets). Will you please double check your source of this problem? I believe you have either misread it or you have a version with a typo. Please update when you determine which. I'd be happy to help with what the problem most likely is, namely finding such $E$ with $\mu(E)<\infty$. (Of course then $E$ need not be proper, and it is trivial when $\mu(X)<\infty$.) – Jonas Meyer May 19 '11 at 22:04
@Jonas: Hey thanks for reading into this... I did leave out the part saying $\mu(E)<\infty$. – Tasadduk Chowdhury May 19 '11 at 23:20
You're welcome. The part where you say $E$ should be proper is still incorrect. In general, it will not be; the example in my first comment gives such a case. (And anytime $\mu(X)<\infty$, you can just take $E=X$, but this special case need not be explicitly addressed.) – Jonas Meyer May 20 '11 at 0:24
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Since the result is trivial if $\int_X {fd\mu } = 0$ or $\mu(X) < \infty$, assume that $\int_X {fd\mu } > 0$ and $\mu(X) = \infty$.

Given $\varepsilon > 0$, it follows from the definition $$ \int_X {fd\mu } = \sup \bigg\{ \int_X {sd\mu } :0 \le s \le f,s \; {\rm simple}\bigg \} $$ that there exists a simple function $0 \leq s \leq f$ such that $$ \int_X {fd\mu } - \varepsilon \le \int_X {sd\mu }. $$ We can suppose that, for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $s$ takes positive values $\alpha_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, on some measurable subsets $E_i$ of $X$ with (necessarily) $\mu(E_i) < \infty$ (since $\int_X {sd\mu } < \infty $), and $s$ is zero on the complement of $E_1 \cup \cdots \cup E_n $. Noting that $s \leq f$, we then have $$ \int_X {sd\mu } = \int_{E_1 \cup \cdots \cup E_n } {sd\mu } \le \int_{E_1 \cup \cdots \cup E_n } {fd\mu } , $$ from which the desired result follows with $E = E_1 \cup \cdots \cup E_n$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Each set $\displaystyle{A_n=\left\{x:|f(x)|>\frac{1}{n}\right\}}$ has finite measure. Each function $f\cdot\chi_{A_n}$ is dominated by $f$, and $f\cdot\chi_{A_n}\to f$ pointwise ($\chi_{A_n}$ denotes the characteristic function of $A_n$). By Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem, $\int_{A_n}fd\mu\to \int_X fd\mu$ as $n\to\infty$. Therefore $E$ can be taken to be $A_n$ for sufficiently large $n$.

Here you could also just use monotone convergence, because $(f\cdot \chi_{A_n})$ increases to $f$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Jonas, doesn't the result follow from the definition of $\int_X {fd\mu }$ (as a sup of...). – Shai Covo May 19 '11 at 23:59
@Shai: Yeah, good point, it could follow more straightforwardly from the definition than I indicated. However, you must have a different definition in mind than I do if this is immediate from the definition. Nonetheless I'm ready to admit this is overkill. Perhaps you could expand on that in an answer? (Of course, everything follows from the definitions :)) – Jonas Meyer May 20 '11 at 0:06
The idea is to consider $\int_X {fd\mu } - \varepsilon \le \int_X {sd\mu } \le \int_{E_1 \cup \cdots \cup E_n } {fd\mu } $ where $\mu (E_1 \cup \cdots \cup E_n ) < \infty $. – Shai Covo May 20 '11 at 0:12
Above $s$ is a simple (nonnegative) function taking positive values on $E_1,\ldots,E_n$ with (necessarily) $\mu(E_i) < \infty$. – Shai Covo May 20 '11 at 0:16
@Shai: Yeah, that's nice. Why not answer? I also like the monotone convergence way of thinking of it, and I like dominated convergence because it would also quickly give $E$ with $\mu(E)<\infty$ and $|\int_Xfd\mu - \int_Efd\mu|<\varepsilon$ regardless of sign. This could all be reduced to the definition, and admittedly, the not-necessarily-nonnegative cases would involve many of the same considerations as working from the definition, but I make no effort to be minimalist. Thank you for your comments, and for pointing out a more optimal explanation. – Jonas Meyer May 20 '11 at 0:17

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.