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 will start with a definition.

A monotone function $f$ on $[a,b]$ is called singular if $f'=0$ almost everywhere.

Let $f$ be a nondecreasing function on $[a,b]$ such that given $\epsilon~,~\delta\gt 0$, $\exists$ a finite collection $\{[y_k,x_k]\}$ of nonoverlapping intervals such that $$\sum |x_k-y_k|\lt \delta~~~~~\text{and}~~~~\sum\left(f(x_k)-f(y_k)\right)\gt f(b)-f(a)-\epsilon.$$
I would like to show that $f$ is singular.

Attempt:

From a previous exercise, I showed that a monotone function $f$ can be written as the sum of an absolutely continuous function, $g$ and a singular function, $h$. Thus $$ f = g + h ,~~~\text{where}~~g=\int_a^x f' .$$
My goal is to show that $g=0$ almost everywhere. Let $I=\bigcup (y_k,x_k).$ Then $$ \int_I f' = \sum \int_{(x_k,y_k)}~f' = \sum\left(f(x_k)-f(y_k)\right)\lt \epsilon.$$
Now, I know that since $f'$ is integrable, there is an $\epsilon$ such that $$\int_{[a,b]\setminus I}~f'\lt \epsilon. $$ But $$\begin{align*} 0\leq \int_a^b f' & = \int_I f'+\int_{[a,b]\setminus I}~f'\\ & \lt \epsilon + \epsilon\\ & = 2\epsilon. \end{align*}$$
Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, we can let $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ and thus $$ \int_a^b f'=0 ~~\text{and }~~g = 0.$$

Is what I've done right? Is there another way of approaching the problem?
Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
What are $(\alpha_i,\beta_i)$? –  Jonas Meyer Nov 5 '11 at 21:36
    
$ \int_{(x_k,y_k)}~f' = f(x_k)-f(y_k)$ is incorrect; is this a typo? In any case, it is true that $\int_I f'$ can be made arbitrarily small, but this is by choosing $\delta$ small enough and using integrability of $f'$; I do not see justification in your solution. –  Jonas Meyer Nov 5 '11 at 21:39
    
$\bigcup(\alpha_i,\beta_i)=[a,b]\setminus I$...so how do I justify that there is such a $\delta$? –  Nana Nov 5 '11 at 22:23
    
$[a,b]\setminus I$ will not be a union of open intervals. (So you could just leave it as $[a,b]\setminus I$ or give it a shorter name if you want.) As for the question in your comment, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/40384/…. –  Jonas Meyer Nov 5 '11 at 22:27
    
okay. Thanks for the link. –  Nana Nov 5 '11 at 22:38

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Given $\varepsilon>0$, there is a $\delta>0$ such that $\int_I f'<\varepsilon$ whenever $m(I)<\delta$. Thus you can choose $I=\cup(x_k,y_k)$ such that $\int_I f'<\varepsilon$ and $\sum_k f(y_k)-f(x_k)>f(b)-f(a)-\varepsilon$.

This implies that

$\begin{align*} &f(b)-f(a)-(h(b)-h(a))\\ &\leq f(b)-f(a) - (\sum_k h(y_k)-h(x_k))\\ &<\sum_k(g(y_k)-g(x_k))+\varepsilon\\ &=\int_I f' +\varepsilon\\ &<2\varepsilon. \end{align*}$

Since $\varepsilon$ was arbitrary, this implies that $f(b)-f(a)=h(b)-h(a)$, so $g(b)-g(a)=0$, which in turn implies that $g=0$ everywhere. (Note how monotonicity is used here several times.)

share|improve this answer
    
This may seem trivial, but why is the first inequality true? Everything else is fine. Thanks. –  Nana Nov 14 '11 at 15:44
    
Assume that there are $N$ intervals arranged so that $x_1<y_1\leq x_2<y_2\leq x_3<y_3\leq\cdots \leq x_N<y_N$. Then $(h(y_1)-h(x_1))+(h(y_2)-h(x_2))+\cdots+(h(y_N)-h(x_N)) $ $=h(y_N)+(h(y_{N-1})-h(x_N))+\cdots+(h(y_1)-h(x_2))-h(x_1)$ $\leq h(y_N)-h(x_1)\leq h(b)-h(a)$ because $h$ is increasing. Perhaps more clearly (but less precisely), $h(b)-h(a)$ gives the total amount that $h$ changes, whereas $\sum_k h(y_k)-h(x_k)$ only counts the change that $h$ does on some nonoverlapping subintervals of $[a,b]$. –  Jonas Meyer Nov 14 '11 at 18:33
    
oh ok....Thanks. –  Nana Nov 15 '11 at 0:04

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.