19
$\begingroup$

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!

| cite | improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ the other way around $\endgroup$ – leo Feb 5 '13 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ You do not have to be sorry. Elementariness is not an absolute concept :) $\endgroup$ – Megadeth Sep 7 '15 at 11:44
30
$\begingroup$

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.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @user1445572 Happy to help! $\endgroup$ – Ayman Hourieh Feb 3 '13 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 '13 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. $\endgroup$ – Ayman Hourieh Nov 4 '13 at 9:38
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, of course! Thank you. :) $\endgroup$ – Prism Nov 4 '13 at 9:44
11
$\begingroup$

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

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why isn't the integral strictly less than zero? Could we use the infimum to get the other inequality? Thanks for helping! $\endgroup$ – Guilherme Salomé Feb 3 '13 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ @user1445572: Yes, that is one way; I just added the easier way around using the infimum. $\endgroup$ – Clayton Feb 3 '13 at 18:14
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ A proof which rely on a convention is not very sastifying, is it ? $\endgroup$ – Lierre Jun 9 '13 at 9:25

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.