21
$\begingroup$

I am sorry for this elementary question, but i could not figure out a rigorous proof for why the Lebesgue integral of any function over a null set is zero.

Thanks for helping!

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ the other way around $\endgroup$
    – leo
    Feb 5, 2013 at 13:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You do not have to be sorry. Elementariness is not an absolute concept :) $\endgroup$
    – Megadeth
    Sep 7, 2015 at 11:44

3 Answers 3

34
$\begingroup$

Start with the definition. The Lebesgue integral of a simple function $s = \sum_{j=1}^n \alpha_j \ \chi_{A_j}$ is:

$$ \int_E s \,d\mu = \sum_{j=1}^n \alpha_i \ \mu(E \cap A_j) $$

If $\mu(E) = 0$, then $\mu(E \cap A_j) = 0$ for all $j$. Thus $\int_E s \,d\mu = 0$.

The Lebesgue integral of a nonnegative function $f$ is the supremum of integrals of all simple functions $s$ such that $0 \le s \le f$. Since all of these integrals are $0$, the supremum is $0$ too.

Since every real function $f$ can be written as $f = f^+ - f^-$ where $f^+$ and $f^-$ are both nonnegative, we have $\int_E f \, d\mu = 0$ too. The general result follows from the fact that every complex function $f$ can be written as $f = u + i v$ where $u$ and $v$ are real.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ @user1445572 Happy to help! $\endgroup$ Feb 3, 2013 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ When going from $\mu(E)=0$ to $\mu(E\cap A_{j})=0$, aren't you assuming that the measure space is complete? If so, is there any way to modify the proof if $X$ is not complete? $\endgroup$
    – Prism
    Nov 4, 2013 at 2:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Prism No need for completeness. Since $A_j$ and $E$ are both measurable, $E \cap A_j$ is measurable too. $\endgroup$ Nov 4, 2013 at 9:38
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, of course! Thank you. :) $\endgroup$
    – Prism
    Nov 4, 2013 at 9:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MSIS The convention in this context is $\infty \cdot 0 = 0$. See Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis, page 18. $\endgroup$ Jul 25, 2020 at 10:23
15
$\begingroup$

Consider that $$\int_E f(x)\leq \sup|f(x)|\cdot m(E).$$ With the convention that $\infty\cdot 0=0$, we have $$\left|\int_E f(x)\right|\leq \sup|f(x)|\cdot m(E)=0.$$

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Why isn't the integral strictly less than zero? Could we use the infimum to get the other inequality? Thanks for helping! $\endgroup$ Feb 3, 2013 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ @user1445572: Yes, that is one way; I just added the easier way around using the infimum. $\endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Feb 3, 2013 at 18:14
  • 18
    $\begingroup$ A proof which rely on a convention is not very sastifying, is it ? $\endgroup$
    – Lierre
    Jun 9, 2013 at 9:25
3
$\begingroup$

Hello this was asked over 7 years ago so I am sure that this is most definitely no longer relevant for you in particular but I thought I would answer this for people in the future who might was a slightly different answer. Infact that statement holds for any measure not just Lebesgue.

Firstly a little about the notation I will use:
$\mathbb{1}_A$ is the "indicator function" of the set $A$ you may have instead seen this as $\chi_A$ or $\mathcal{1}_A$ or something else. It simply takes the value $1$ on $A$ and $0$ otherwise.

This proof will require:

Theorem 1:
If $f = g$ $ \mu$ almost everywhere then $\int f d\mu = \int g d\mu$

(A proof of this theorem can be found at the bottom of this answer but this is a fairly simple result in most measure theory courses.)

Proof of main result

We wish to show that $\int_A f d \mu = 0 $ whenever $\mu(A) = 0 $

Firstly $\int_A f d \mu = \int f \mathbb{1}_A d\mu $

Secondly the function $g := f \mathbb{1}_A $ is $0$ almost everywhere as by the definition of indicator functions it is non zero only on $A$ which again has measure zero from the question.

More formally let us define $ N := \{ x \in X | g(x) \not = 0 \} $ any $x \in N $ must be in $A$ because $g(x)$ for $x \not \in A = 0 $ hence $N \subseteq A$ Hence $\mu(N) = 0 $ (monotonicity of measure)

Hence $g = 0 $ almost everywhere and so by Theorem 1:
$\int_A f d\mu = \int f \mathbb{1}_A d \mu = \int g d\mu = $(Theorem 1)$ = \int 0 d\mu = 0 $

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ An additional answer is always welcome! Thanks for contributing. :D $\endgroup$ Feb 22, 2021 at 15:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A beautiful answer! $\endgroup$
    – ashpool
    Jun 17, 2021 at 21:30

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.