2
$\begingroup$

If $f : [a,b] \to [0,M]$ is Riemann integrable and has integral zero then $f(x) = 0$ at every continuity point $x$ of $f$.

I don't know how to prove this though I have faint idea stated below. Can we use this idea?

Proof:

We are given that function is Riemann integrable and integral is zero.

$$\lim_{mesh \space P \to \space 0} R(f,P,T) = I$$

So, Given $\epsilon > 0, \exists\delta>0, $ such that for any partition pair $$mesh \space P < \delta \implies \left| R(f,P,T) - I\right| < \epsilon $$

If number of intervals are n then $$ \left| \sum_{i=1}^n f(t_i)\Delta x_i \right| < \epsilon$$

Now we can take contradiction that function has value greater than 0 at some continuous points and then use this to contradict : If function is Riemann integrable, then it's set of discontinuities will be zero set.

But I am not able to formulate it. Give me hint. Thanks.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You can use a theorem that states that $f$ is Riemann integrable if and only if the set $D$ of points at which $f$ fails to be continuous has measure zero in $\mathbf{R}^n$? $\endgroup$ – positrón0802 Jul 22 '17 at 4:53
  • $\begingroup$ @positrón0802 But I don't know how to use it. $\endgroup$ – MeetR Jul 22 '17 at 4:54
  • $\begingroup$ @positrón0802 What you stated is a deep theorem due to Lebesgue and is not related to the current question. We are not asked to prove that $f=0$ a.e.. We are just asked to proved that $f(x_0)=0$ if f is continuous at $x_0$. $\endgroup$ – Danny Pak-Keung Chan Jul 22 '17 at 5:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is rather odd that your book presents this as a corollary of a deep and difficult theorem when the result is easily available via contradiction as shown in @DannyPak-KeungChan answer. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Jul 22 '17 at 5:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ However I don't think the question deserves downvotes. +1 to compensate. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Jul 22 '17 at 5:17
6
$\begingroup$

Prove by contradiction. Suppose that there exists $x_{0}\in[a,b]$ such that $f$ is continuous at $x_{0}$ and $f(x_{0})>0$. Let $c=\frac{1}{2}f(x_{0})>0$. Since $f$ is continuous at $x_{0}$ and $f(x_{0})>c$, there exists $\delta>0$ such that $f(x)>c$ for any $x\in[x_{0}-\delta,x_{0}+\delta]$. (We need to adjust the interval $[x_{0}-\delta,x_{0}+\delta]$ accordingly if $x_{0}=a$ or $x_{0}=b$.)

Since $f\geq0$, we have $$ \int_{a}^{b}f(x)\,dx\geq\int_{x_{0}-\delta}^{x_{0}+\delta}f(x)\,dx\geq\int_{x_{0}-\delta}^{x_{0}+\delta}c\,dx=2\delta c>0, $$ which is a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For completeness' sake: With the mentioned adjustment for the boundaries, it is $$\int_a^bf(x)\,\mathrm dx\ge\int_{\max\{a,x_0-\delta\}}^{\min\{b,x_0+\delta\}}f(x)\,\mathrm dx\ge \int_{\max\{a,x_0-\delta\}}^{\min\{b,x_0+\delta\}}c,\mathrm dx\ge \min\{\delta,b-a\}c>0$$ $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Jul 22 '17 at 6:08

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.