prove that $g(x)$ is integrable, and $int_(0,1) g=int_(0,1) f$

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $f:(0,1)rightarrow mathbbR$ be Lebesgue integrable. Prove that $g(x)=int_(x,1) fracf(y)y dlambda$ is measurable, integrable and that $int_(0,1)g dlambda=int_(0,1)f dlambda$



I know that since f is a Lebesgue integrable function it needs to be measurable, the function $f(y)/y$ for $y$ in $(x,1)$ is perfectly well defined and does not come into trouble since $x>0$, but besides that, I don't see how may we engage the fact of f being lebesgue integrable in order to continue with the problem.



I also have that:



$int_(0,1)g(x)dx=int_(0,1)int_(x,1)fracf(y)ydydx$, but don't feel certain of whether a limit here would be of any use in order to get to the right hand side of the equality.



Thanks in advance for any useful tip on how this problem may be approached.







share|cite|improve this question




















  • Can we apply Fubini's theorem here?
    – Berci
    Aug 9 at 21:34










  • You can write $f$ as $f^+-f^-$ so the proof actually reduces to the case $f$ non-negative. So Tonelli's Theorem can be applied.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Aug 9 at 23:44















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $f:(0,1)rightarrow mathbbR$ be Lebesgue integrable. Prove that $g(x)=int_(x,1) fracf(y)y dlambda$ is measurable, integrable and that $int_(0,1)g dlambda=int_(0,1)f dlambda$



I know that since f is a Lebesgue integrable function it needs to be measurable, the function $f(y)/y$ for $y$ in $(x,1)$ is perfectly well defined and does not come into trouble since $x>0$, but besides that, I don't see how may we engage the fact of f being lebesgue integrable in order to continue with the problem.



I also have that:



$int_(0,1)g(x)dx=int_(0,1)int_(x,1)fracf(y)ydydx$, but don't feel certain of whether a limit here would be of any use in order to get to the right hand side of the equality.



Thanks in advance for any useful tip on how this problem may be approached.







share|cite|improve this question




















  • Can we apply Fubini's theorem here?
    – Berci
    Aug 9 at 21:34










  • You can write $f$ as $f^+-f^-$ so the proof actually reduces to the case $f$ non-negative. So Tonelli's Theorem can be applied.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Aug 9 at 23:44













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Let $f:(0,1)rightarrow mathbbR$ be Lebesgue integrable. Prove that $g(x)=int_(x,1) fracf(y)y dlambda$ is measurable, integrable and that $int_(0,1)g dlambda=int_(0,1)f dlambda$



I know that since f is a Lebesgue integrable function it needs to be measurable, the function $f(y)/y$ for $y$ in $(x,1)$ is perfectly well defined and does not come into trouble since $x>0$, but besides that, I don't see how may we engage the fact of f being lebesgue integrable in order to continue with the problem.



I also have that:



$int_(0,1)g(x)dx=int_(0,1)int_(x,1)fracf(y)ydydx$, but don't feel certain of whether a limit here would be of any use in order to get to the right hand side of the equality.



Thanks in advance for any useful tip on how this problem may be approached.







share|cite|improve this question












Let $f:(0,1)rightarrow mathbbR$ be Lebesgue integrable. Prove that $g(x)=int_(x,1) fracf(y)y dlambda$ is measurable, integrable and that $int_(0,1)g dlambda=int_(0,1)f dlambda$



I know that since f is a Lebesgue integrable function it needs to be measurable, the function $f(y)/y$ for $y$ in $(x,1)$ is perfectly well defined and does not come into trouble since $x>0$, but besides that, I don't see how may we engage the fact of f being lebesgue integrable in order to continue with the problem.



I also have that:



$int_(0,1)g(x)dx=int_(0,1)int_(x,1)fracf(y)ydydx$, but don't feel certain of whether a limit here would be of any use in order to get to the right hand side of the equality.



Thanks in advance for any useful tip on how this problem may be approached.









share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Aug 9 at 21:18









Stiven G

899




899











  • Can we apply Fubini's theorem here?
    – Berci
    Aug 9 at 21:34










  • You can write $f$ as $f^+-f^-$ so the proof actually reduces to the case $f$ non-negative. So Tonelli's Theorem can be applied.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Aug 9 at 23:44

















  • Can we apply Fubini's theorem here?
    – Berci
    Aug 9 at 21:34










  • You can write $f$ as $f^+-f^-$ so the proof actually reduces to the case $f$ non-negative. So Tonelli's Theorem can be applied.
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Aug 9 at 23:44
















Can we apply Fubini's theorem here?
– Berci
Aug 9 at 21:34




Can we apply Fubini's theorem here?
– Berci
Aug 9 at 21:34












You can write $f$ as $f^+-f^-$ so the proof actually reduces to the case $f$ non-negative. So Tonelli's Theorem can be applied.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Aug 9 at 23:44





You can write $f$ as $f^+-f^-$ so the proof actually reduces to the case $f$ non-negative. So Tonelli's Theorem can be applied.
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Aug 9 at 23:44











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Define $h: [0,1]times [0,1]rightarrow mathbbR$, $h(x,y)= casesfracf(y)y ,, textif,, y>x\ 0 ,, textotherwise$.



Then $intlimits_[0,1] g , dlambda = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_x^1 fracf(y)y , dy , dx = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dy , dx $, which by Fubini's theorem is



$intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^y fracf(y)y , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 ycdot fracf(y)y , dy = intlimits_0^1 f(y) , dy = intlimits_[0,1] f , dlambda$.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    The question is: why can you use Fubini here?
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 21:51






  • 1




    I don't think that is a serious problem. As $f$ is Lebesgue integrable and both measures are finite, there shouldn't be any trouble. (The horizontal segments are step functions, and the vertical segments are clearly integrable, so everything is nice and the calculation makes sense.)
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:01







  • 2




    Of course, the calculation makes sense, and it is correct. But "shouldn't be any trouble" is not a rigorous reasoning. I propose the following: First show that $|h|$ is integrable. Here, you can use Fubini since $|h|ge 0$. Hence, you can use Fubini on $h$ itself.
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 22:14






  • 1




    Sure, this is the rigorous argument. But this is fairly straightforward, I think. That is what I meant by "shouldn't be any trouble": simple. Anyway, you are right, this is how it is done. So good point.
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:18










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2877708%2fprove-that-gx-is-integrable-and-int-0-1-g-int-0-1-f%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Define $h: [0,1]times [0,1]rightarrow mathbbR$, $h(x,y)= casesfracf(y)y ,, textif,, y>x\ 0 ,, textotherwise$.



Then $intlimits_[0,1] g , dlambda = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_x^1 fracf(y)y , dy , dx = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dy , dx $, which by Fubini's theorem is



$intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^y fracf(y)y , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 ycdot fracf(y)y , dy = intlimits_0^1 f(y) , dy = intlimits_[0,1] f , dlambda$.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    The question is: why can you use Fubini here?
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 21:51






  • 1




    I don't think that is a serious problem. As $f$ is Lebesgue integrable and both measures are finite, there shouldn't be any trouble. (The horizontal segments are step functions, and the vertical segments are clearly integrable, so everything is nice and the calculation makes sense.)
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:01







  • 2




    Of course, the calculation makes sense, and it is correct. But "shouldn't be any trouble" is not a rigorous reasoning. I propose the following: First show that $|h|$ is integrable. Here, you can use Fubini since $|h|ge 0$. Hence, you can use Fubini on $h$ itself.
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 22:14






  • 1




    Sure, this is the rigorous argument. But this is fairly straightforward, I think. That is what I meant by "shouldn't be any trouble": simple. Anyway, you are right, this is how it is done. So good point.
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:18














up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Define $h: [0,1]times [0,1]rightarrow mathbbR$, $h(x,y)= casesfracf(y)y ,, textif,, y>x\ 0 ,, textotherwise$.



Then $intlimits_[0,1] g , dlambda = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_x^1 fracf(y)y , dy , dx = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dy , dx $, which by Fubini's theorem is



$intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^y fracf(y)y , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 ycdot fracf(y)y , dy = intlimits_0^1 f(y) , dy = intlimits_[0,1] f , dlambda$.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    The question is: why can you use Fubini here?
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 21:51






  • 1




    I don't think that is a serious problem. As $f$ is Lebesgue integrable and both measures are finite, there shouldn't be any trouble. (The horizontal segments are step functions, and the vertical segments are clearly integrable, so everything is nice and the calculation makes sense.)
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:01







  • 2




    Of course, the calculation makes sense, and it is correct. But "shouldn't be any trouble" is not a rigorous reasoning. I propose the following: First show that $|h|$ is integrable. Here, you can use Fubini since $|h|ge 0$. Hence, you can use Fubini on $h$ itself.
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 22:14






  • 1




    Sure, this is the rigorous argument. But this is fairly straightforward, I think. That is what I meant by "shouldn't be any trouble": simple. Anyway, you are right, this is how it is done. So good point.
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:18












up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






Define $h: [0,1]times [0,1]rightarrow mathbbR$, $h(x,y)= casesfracf(y)y ,, textif,, y>x\ 0 ,, textotherwise$.



Then $intlimits_[0,1] g , dlambda = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_x^1 fracf(y)y , dy , dx = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dy , dx $, which by Fubini's theorem is



$intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^y fracf(y)y , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 ycdot fracf(y)y , dy = intlimits_0^1 f(y) , dy = intlimits_[0,1] f , dlambda$.






share|cite|improve this answer












Define $h: [0,1]times [0,1]rightarrow mathbbR$, $h(x,y)= casesfracf(y)y ,, textif,, y>x\ 0 ,, textotherwise$.



Then $intlimits_[0,1] g , dlambda = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_x^1 fracf(y)y , dy , dx = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dy , dx $, which by Fubini's theorem is



$intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^1 h(x,y) , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 intlimits_0^y fracf(y)y , dx , dy = intlimits_0^1 ycdot fracf(y)y , dy = intlimits_0^1 f(y) , dy = intlimits_[0,1] f , dlambda$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Aug 9 at 21:46









A. Pongrácz

3,617624




3,617624







  • 1




    The question is: why can you use Fubini here?
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 21:51






  • 1




    I don't think that is a serious problem. As $f$ is Lebesgue integrable and both measures are finite, there shouldn't be any trouble. (The horizontal segments are step functions, and the vertical segments are clearly integrable, so everything is nice and the calculation makes sense.)
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:01







  • 2




    Of course, the calculation makes sense, and it is correct. But "shouldn't be any trouble" is not a rigorous reasoning. I propose the following: First show that $|h|$ is integrable. Here, you can use Fubini since $|h|ge 0$. Hence, you can use Fubini on $h$ itself.
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 22:14






  • 1




    Sure, this is the rigorous argument. But this is fairly straightforward, I think. That is what I meant by "shouldn't be any trouble": simple. Anyway, you are right, this is how it is done. So good point.
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:18












  • 1




    The question is: why can you use Fubini here?
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 21:51






  • 1




    I don't think that is a serious problem. As $f$ is Lebesgue integrable and both measures are finite, there shouldn't be any trouble. (The horizontal segments are step functions, and the vertical segments are clearly integrable, so everything is nice and the calculation makes sense.)
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:01







  • 2




    Of course, the calculation makes sense, and it is correct. But "shouldn't be any trouble" is not a rigorous reasoning. I propose the following: First show that $|h|$ is integrable. Here, you can use Fubini since $|h|ge 0$. Hence, you can use Fubini on $h$ itself.
    – amsmath
    Aug 9 at 22:14






  • 1




    Sure, this is the rigorous argument. But this is fairly straightforward, I think. That is what I meant by "shouldn't be any trouble": simple. Anyway, you are right, this is how it is done. So good point.
    – A. Pongrácz
    Aug 9 at 22:18







1




1




The question is: why can you use Fubini here?
– amsmath
Aug 9 at 21:51




The question is: why can you use Fubini here?
– amsmath
Aug 9 at 21:51




1




1




I don't think that is a serious problem. As $f$ is Lebesgue integrable and both measures are finite, there shouldn't be any trouble. (The horizontal segments are step functions, and the vertical segments are clearly integrable, so everything is nice and the calculation makes sense.)
– A. Pongrácz
Aug 9 at 22:01





I don't think that is a serious problem. As $f$ is Lebesgue integrable and both measures are finite, there shouldn't be any trouble. (The horizontal segments are step functions, and the vertical segments are clearly integrable, so everything is nice and the calculation makes sense.)
– A. Pongrácz
Aug 9 at 22:01





2




2




Of course, the calculation makes sense, and it is correct. But "shouldn't be any trouble" is not a rigorous reasoning. I propose the following: First show that $|h|$ is integrable. Here, you can use Fubini since $|h|ge 0$. Hence, you can use Fubini on $h$ itself.
– amsmath
Aug 9 at 22:14




Of course, the calculation makes sense, and it is correct. But "shouldn't be any trouble" is not a rigorous reasoning. I propose the following: First show that $|h|$ is integrable. Here, you can use Fubini since $|h|ge 0$. Hence, you can use Fubini on $h$ itself.
– amsmath
Aug 9 at 22:14




1




1




Sure, this is the rigorous argument. But this is fairly straightforward, I think. That is what I meant by "shouldn't be any trouble": simple. Anyway, you are right, this is how it is done. So good point.
– A. Pongrácz
Aug 9 at 22:18




Sure, this is the rigorous argument. But this is fairly straightforward, I think. That is what I meant by "shouldn't be any trouble": simple. Anyway, you are right, this is how it is done. So good point.
– A. Pongrácz
Aug 9 at 22:18












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2877708%2fprove-that-gx-is-integrable-and-int-0-1-g-int-0-1-f%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Carbon dioxide

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?