The Unapologetic Mathematician

Mathematics for the interested outsider

Extending the Integral

Given an integrable function f, we’ve defined the indefinite integral \nu(E) to be the set function

\displaystyle\nu(E)=\int\limits_Ef\,d\mu=\int f\chi_E\,d\mu

This is clearly real-valued, and we’ve seen that it’s countably additive. If f is a.e. non-negative, then \nu(E) will also be non-negative, and so the indefinite integral is a measure. Since f is integrable we see that

\displaystyle\nu(X)=\int f\,d\mu<\infty

and so \nu is a totally finite measure.

But this situation feels a bit artificially restrictive in a couple ways. First of all, measures can be extended real-valued — why do we never find \nu(E)=\pm\infty? Well, it makes sense to extend the definition of at least the symbol of integration a bit. If f is not integrable, but f\geq0 a.e., there is really only one possibility: there is no upper bound on the integrals of simple functions smaller than f. And so in this situation it makes sense to define

\displaystyle\int f\,d\mu=\infty

Similarly, if f\leq0 a.e. and fails to be integrable, it makes sense to define

\displaystyle\int f\,d\mu=-\infty

In general, we can break a function f into its positive and negative parts f^+ and f^-, and then define

\displaystyle f\,d\mu=\int f^+\,d\mu-\int f^-\,d\mu

for all functions for which at most one of f^+ and f^- fails to be integrable. That is, if the positive part f^+ is integrable but the negative part f^- is not, then the integral can be defined to be -\infty. If the negative part is integrable but the positive part isn’t, we can define the integral to be \infty. If both positive and negative parts are integrable then the whole function is integrable, while if neither part is integrable we still leave the integral undefined. We don’t know in general how to deal with the indeterminate form \infty-\infty.

And so now we find that any a.e. non-negative function — integrable or not — defines a measure by its indefinite integral. If f isn’t integrable, then we get an extended real-valued set function, but this doesn’t prevent it from being a measure. As a matter of terminology, we should point out that we don’t call a function whose integral is now defined to be positive or negative \infty to be “integrable”. That term is still reserved for those functions whose indefinite integrals are totally finite, as above.

About these ads

June 21, 2010 - Posted by | Analysis, Measure Theory

3 Comments »

  1. [...] We continue what we started yesterday by extending the notion of a measure. We want something that captures the indefinite integrals of [...]

    Pingback by Signed Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 22, 2010 | Reply

  2. [...] take a moment and consider what this means. We know that if we take an integrable function , or a function whose integral diverges definitely, on a -finite measure space and define its indefinite integral , then is a -finite signed measure [...]

    Pingback by The Radon-Nikodym Theorem (Statement) « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 6, 2010 | Reply

  3. [...] is a function on so that its integral is defined — either is integrable, or its integral diverges definitely — then we write it as any [...]

    Pingback by Double and Iterated Integrals « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 27, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 392 other followers

%d bloggers like this: