13
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
18
$\begingroup$

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 $f = 1_{(0,1)} - 1_{(-1,0)}$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is it possible to prove this without using contradiction? I've been thinking about how to do it this way, but I can't come up with a way to do it. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – user110320 Mar 7 '18 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ Pardon me if I am mistaken, but don't we actually need to assume that $f$ is non-negative for this result, because it strikes me that the argument for the second case does not go through analogously. $\endgroup$ – Raj Dec 3 at 7:03
3
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$

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.