3
$\begingroup$

From the standpoint of the higher dimensional Riemann Integral:

For a general bounded set, $S$, that is not a rectangle, the convention is to integrate $f$ over $S$ by first subsuming $S$ within some rectangle $Q$ and then integrating $f_{S}$ (the characteristic function of $f$ with respect to $S$; ie $f(x) = f$ for $x \in S$ and $f(x) = 0$ for $x \not \in S$) over $Q$.

As a consequence, $f_{S}$ is integrable over this rectangle $iff$ the set $E$ of points $x_{0} \in \delta(S)$ for which $$\lim_{x \to x_{0}}f(x) \not = 0$$ is measure zero.

Here $\delta(S)$ is the border of $S$.

That is,

$$m(\{x_{0} \in \delta(S) | \lim_{x \to x_{0}}f(x) \not = 0 \}) = 0$$

A continuous function may, thus, fail to be integrable over a compact set, if $E$ is not measure zero. Could someone propose an example of such an instance?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What is the meaning of $f_S$ -- is it the restriction of $f$ to the set $S$? Also what is $\delta(S)$? $\endgroup$ – coffeemath Mar 4 '17 at 0:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To clarify here: You're talking about Riemann integration. So you might want to think about just the function $f=1$ on $S$. But you want to make the boundary of $S$ not have measure $0$. Can you design such a set $S$? $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Mar 4 '17 at 0:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $f_S (x) = \begin{cases} f(x), & x\in S \\ 0, & x\notin S\end{cases}$, as a function on an enclosing rectangle. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Mar 4 '17 at 0:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I believe that the boundary of a compact set in $\mathbb{R}^n$ always has measure 0. This is certainly true if your set is a manifold. $\endgroup$ – ChocolateAndCheese Mar 4 '17 at 0:53
  • $\begingroup$ @RobArthan: I was just trying to switch the focus from the function to the set $S$ itself, which could be troublesome. If the boundary of $S$ has measure $0$, then the function $f$ becomes irrelevant, does it not, in trying to violate the criterion? $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Mar 4 '17 at 0:54
3
$\begingroup$

Consider an enumeration $\{q_{n}\}_{n}$ of the sets of points in $(0,1)^{N}$ with rational coordinates $\mathbb{R}^{N}$, that is, $(0,1)^{N}\cap \mathbb{Q}^{N}=\{q_{n}:\,n\in\mathbb{N}\}$. Fix $\varepsilon>0$ and for each $n$ consider the ball $B(q_{n},r_{n})$, where $r_{n}\leq\frac{\varepsilon }{2^{n}}$ and $r_{n}>0$ is so small that $B(q_{n},r_{n})\subseteq(0,1)^{N}$. Let $U:=\bigcup_{n=`1}^{\infty}B(q_{n},r_{n})$. Denoting by $\mathcal{L}^{N}$ the Lebesgue measure, we have that $$ \mathcal{L}^{N}(U)\leq\sum_{n=`1}^{\infty}\mathcal{L}^{N}(B(q_{n}% ,r_{n}))=\alpha_{N}\sum_{n=`1}^{\infty}r_{n}^{N}\leq\alpha_{N}\sum _{n=`1}^{\infty}\frac{\varepsilon^{N}}{2^{Nn}}\leq\alpha_{N}\varepsilon^{N}<1 $$ provided $\varepsilon>0$ is sufficiently small. On the other hand, by the density of the rationals, the closure of $U$ is $[0,1]^{N}$. Thus the boundary of $U$, $S=\partial U=[0,1]^{N}\setminus U$ has positive Lebesgue measure. Taking $f=1$, we have that $$ f_{S}(x)=\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{ll}% 1 & \text{if }x\in S,\\ 0 & \text{if }x\in U. \end{array} \right. $$ It follows that $f_{S}$ is discontinuos at every point of $S$ and so it cannot be Riemann integrable in $[0,1]^{N}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't $\delta(S) = [0,1]^{n}$ since every point in $S$ has a neighborhood intersecting both $int(S)$ and $int(S^{C})$? Also, $S$ is not closed in your example, so it can't be compact (I think). $\endgroup$ – Muno Mar 4 '17 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ If you want $S$ compact, call $U$ the union of the balls and $S=[0,1]^N\setminus U$. Then $S$ is compact. $\endgroup$ – Gio67 Mar 4 '17 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ As to your first question, no, the union of the balls is open so any point in this union is an interior point and not on the boundary $\endgroup$ – Gio67 Mar 4 '17 at 1:42
  • $\begingroup$ If you construct $S$ to make it compact ($S = [0,1]^{N} - U$), then the function $1$ on $S$ is no longer continuous. Is that true? $\endgroup$ – Muno Mar 4 '17 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ You take f=1 which is continuous. But then $f_S$ is not. I edited my question. Hope it is clear now. $\endgroup$ – Gio67 Mar 4 '17 at 16:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.