Community

Want to learn how to tackle those tough MATHCOUNTS and AMC counting and probability problems? Check out Art of Problem Solving's Introduction to Counting & Probability by David Patrick.
Login Register Memberlist Search AoPS Blogs Contests Galleries Forum Index
The time now is Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:58 pm
All times are UTC - 8
View posts since last visit
View unanswered posts
lebesgue integral problem 4
Moderators: College Playground Moderators
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topicView next topic
5 Posts • Page 1 of 1
Author Message
liyi
Navier-Stokes Equations
Navier-Stokes Equations

Offline
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 1630
Location: Foochow, Fukien
China

To rate posts you must be logged in
#1
lebesgue integral problem 4
textbook

f\in L(\mathbb{R}) and x f(x) \in L(\mathbb{R}). Let
F(x) = \int_{-\infty}^x f(t)dt.
If \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x)dx = 0 show that F\in L(\mathbb{R}).

PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 6:07 pm  Back to top 
  ProfilePMMSN
Kent Merryfield
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer

Offline
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 11419
Location: Long Beach, CA
United States

To rate posts you must be logged in
#2
Note that F(x) can also be written as -\int_x^{\infty}f(t)dt.

Define G(x)=\int_{-\infty}^x|f(t)|dt for x<0 and G(x)=\int_x^{\infty}|f(t)|dt for x>0. Clearly, |F(x)|\le G(x) so that if we prove G integrable, we also prove that F is integrable.

Note that for x>0, xG(x)=x\int_x^{\infty}|f(t)|dt\le \int_x^{\infty}t|f(t)|dt. Similarly, for x<0, |x|G(x)\le \int_{-\infty}^x|tf(t)|dt.

Hence, \lim_{|x|\to\infty}|x|G(x)=0.

Integrate by parts (the justification for this is actually Fubini's Theorem):

\int_{-\infty}^0G(x)dx=\left xG(x)\right|_{-\infty}^0 -\int_{-\infty}^0x|f(x)|dx, which is clearly finite because of the limit we established above.

A similar integration by parts argument shows the integrability of G on [0,\infty).

PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:31 am  Back to top 
  ProfilePM
dickchimney
Poincare Conjecture
Poincare Conjecture

Offline
Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 218

To rate posts you must be logged in
#3
Somone comments on the Kent's proof??!!
I think this problem can be consider Solved Wink

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:08 pm  Back to top 
  ProfilePMBlog
Myth
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer


Offline
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 4490
Location: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Russian Federation

To rate posts you must be logged in
#4
I am waiting liyi says his word. Smile
_________________
Myth is out of here

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:40 am  Back to top 
  ProfilePM
liyi
Navier-Stokes Equations
Navier-Stokes Equations

Offline
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 1630
Location: Foochow, Fukien
China

To rate posts you must be logged in
#5
his proof is completely correct.
anyway, i was trying to avoid integration by parts.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:58 am  Back to top 
  ProfilePMMSN
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
5 Posts • Page 1 of 1
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topicView next topic
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum


© Copyright 2008 AoPS Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. • FoundationPrivacyContact Us