Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Math Help - A problem of Riemann Integrable

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66

    Talking A problem of Riemann Integrable

    If f(x) is Riemann Integrable in [a,b],and for any integer n\geq0, we have \int_{a}^{b}x^{n}f(x)dx = 0. can we get the conclusion: f(x)=0 a.e.?
    (a.e. stands for almost everywhere)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    México
    Posts
    721
    Yes. Note that if \int_{a} ^{b} \ x^nf(x)dx =0 for all n \in \mathbb{N} then \int_{a} ^{b} \ p(x)f(x)dx =0 for any polynomial p(x). By Wierstrass aproximation theorem, this set (polynomials) is dense in C^0 ([a,b]) where this last is considered with the uniform norm. The functional I: C^0([a,b]) \rightarrow \mathbb{R} g \mapsto \int_{a} ^{b} \ g(x)f(x)dx is linear and continous and is zero on a dense subset of the domain so it must be zero everywhere. So \int_{a} ^{b} \ g(x)f(x)dx =0 for all g(x) \in C^0([a,b]). It is a well known result that under this conditions f \equiv 0.

    Edit: Actually, we would need f to be continous, but since it's R-I it's continous a.e. so there is no real problem.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Xingyuan View Post
    If f(x) is Riemann Integrable in [a,b],and for any integer n\geq0, we have \int_{a}^{b}x^{n}f(x)dx = 0. can we get the conclusion: f(x)=0 a.e.?
    (a.e. stands for almost everywhere)

    Well you made your question almost trivial allowing n >= 0 ==> taking n = 0 we get that INT{1*f(x)} dx = 0 ==> f(x) = 0 a.e.

    Tonio
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by tonio View Post
    Well you made your question almost trivial allowing n >= 0 ==> taking n = 0 we get that INT{1*f(x)} dx = 0 ==> f(x) = 0 a.e.

    Tonio
    No,In the problem,I am not assuming f(x)\geq0
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Xingyuan View Post
    No,In the problem,I am not assuming f(x)\geq0

    I didn't say anything about f(x) >= 0. I took n = 0, since you wrote n >= 0, and then x^0 =1 and INT{x^0*f(x)} dx = INT fx dx = 0 ==> f(x) = 0 a.e.

    Tonio
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by tonio View Post
    Well you made your question almost trivial allowing n >= 0 ==> taking n = 0 we get that INT{1*f(x)} dx = 0 ==> f(x) = 0 a.e.

    Tonio
    Huh? That doesn't follow.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Super Member redsoxfan325's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2009
    From
    Swampscott, MA
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by tonio View Post
    I didn't say anything about f(x) >= 0. I took n = 0, since you wrote n >= 0, and then x^0 =1 and INT{x^0*f(x)} dx = INT fx dx = 0 ==> f(x) = 0 a.e.

    Tonio
    Consider \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\sin(x)\,dx

    It's only 0 at the two endpoints and x=0, but the whole integral is 0.

    Or, for that matter, consider \int_{-a}^a f(x)\,dx where f(x) is any odd function.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by rn443 View Post
    Huh? That doesn't follow.

    Yes it does

    Tonio
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Member
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by tonio View Post
    Yes it does

    Tonio
    Are you assuming f is nonnegative?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by rn443 View Post
    Are you assuming f is nonnegative?
    Ok, I thought you gave f(x) >= 0 but you actually didn't, but then the claim is false as redsoxfan showed already.

    Tonio
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Member
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    80
    Does the theorem still hold if we instead assume \int_{-\infty}^\infty x^n f(x) \mathrm dx = 0 for all n >= 0, provided that \int_{-\infty}^\infty |x^n f(x)| \mathrm dx exists and is finite?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    MHF Contributor chisigma's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2009
    From
    near Piacenza (Italy)
    Posts
    2,162
    Thanks
    5
    Lets suppose, without loss of generality, that is a=-\pi and b=\pi. Since f(*) is Riemann integrable in [-\pi,\pi] is can be expanded in Fourier series ...

    f(x)= \frac{a_0}{2} + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_{k}\cdot \cos kx + b_{k}\cdot \sin kx (1)

    ... where...

    a_{k}= \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f(x)\cdot \cos kx\cdot dx

    b_{k}= \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f(x)\cdot \sin kx\cdot dx (2)

    Now is...

    \cos kx = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n}\cdot (kx)^{2n}}{(2n)!}

    \sin kx = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n}\cdot (kx)^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!} (3)

    ... and \forall n\ge 0 is...

    \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} x^{n}\cdot f(x)\cdot dx =0 (4)

    The conclusion is that all the integrals in (2) are null and the same is for the a_{k} and b_{k} ...

    Kind regards

    \chi \sigma
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose27 View Post
    Yes. Note that if \int_{a} ^{b} \ x^nf(x)dx =0 for all n \in \mathbb{N} then \int_{a} ^{b} \ p(x)f(x)dx =0 for any polynomial p(x). By Wierstrass aproximation theorem, this set (polynomials) is dense in C^0 ([a,b]) where this last is considered with the uniform norm. The functional I: C^0([a,b]) \rightarrow \mathbb{R} g \mapsto \int_{a} ^{b} \ g(x)f(x)dx is linear and continous and is zero on a dense subset of the domain so it must be zero everywhere. So \int_{a} ^{b} \ g(x)f(x)dx =0 for all g(x) \in C^0([a,b]). It is a well known result that under this conditions f \equiv 0.

    Edit: Actually, we would need f to be continous, but since it's R-I it's continous a.e. so there is no real problem.
    Yes,Riemann Integrable function is continous a.e.
    But Weierstrass' approximation theorem is:
    Every function defined and continuous on the finite interval [a,b] can be approximated uniformly on [a,b] by polynomials to any degree of accuracy.
    Because Weierstrass' approximation theorem must be use on interval ,so we must make another function g(x)
    If we denote the set E of all discontinuity point,then define:

    g(x)=\{ \begin{array}{cc}f(x), &\mbox{if x is a continuous point of} f(x) \\ \lim_{t \rightarrow x}f(t) &\mbox{if x is a discontinuity point of} f(x) \end{array}

    then g(x) is a continuous function on [a,b],right?

    then use the conclusion above,we get the conclusion g(x)\equiv0.
    so f(x)=0a.e.
    Is this proof right?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    Super Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    México
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by Xingyuan View Post
    Yes,Riemann Integrable function is continous a.e.
    But Weierstrass' approximation theorem is:
    Every function defined and continuous on the finite interval [a,b] can be approximated uniformly on [a,b] by polynomials to any degree of accuracy.
    Because Weierstrass' approximation theorem must be use on interval ,so we must make another function g(x)
    If we denote the set E of all discontinuity point,then define:

    g(x)=\{ \begin{array}{cc}f(x), &\mbox{if x is a continuous point of} f(x) \\ \lim_{t \rightarrow x}f(t) &\mbox{if x is a discontinuity point of} f(x) \end{array}

    then g(x) is a continuous function on [a,b],right?

    then use the conclusion above,we get the conclusion g(x)\equiv0.
    so f(x)=0a.e.
    Is this proof right?
    Notice that I'm using Weierstrass to expand the set of functions g such that \int_{a} ^{b} g(x)f(x)dx =0, I'm not saying anything about f.

    Another thing, the g you defined could be not well defined if f has a jump discontinuity.

    Ok, I thought you gave f(x) >= 0 but you actually didn't, but then the claim is false as redsoxfan showed already.
    This doesn't contradict the claim since \int_{-\pi } ^{\pi } x\sin(x) dx=2\int_{0 } ^{ \pi } x\sin(x) dx >0
    Last edited by Jose27; October 15th 2009 at 11:19 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    Super Member redsoxfan325's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2009
    From
    Swampscott, MA
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose27 View Post
    This doesn't contradict the claim since \int_{-\pi } ^{\pi } x\sin(x) dx=2\int_{0 } ^{ \pi } x\sin(x) dx >0
    I was only contradicting the case n=0.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Riemann integrable
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 8th 2011, 08:09 AM
  2. f & g Riemann integrable, show fg is integrable
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 12th 2011, 10:19 PM
  3. need a counterexample for Riemann Integrable functions problem
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 5th 2009, 08:29 PM
  4. riemann integrable
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 29th 2009, 06:48 AM
  5. riemann integrable problem
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 15th 2008, 06:51 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum