Integrating f Over a Set: Is it Possible?

In summary, the question is asking if a function f that is integrable over a set S will also be integrable over a subset E of S. The answer is no, as even simple functions like f(x)=1 can become non-integrable when E is a very "ugly" set, such as the set of rational numbers. This issue can be resolved by considering more sets, but there will still be sets over which f cannot be integrated. The extra condition that E must not be of measure zero does not guarantee that f will be integrable over E.
  • #1
JG89
728
1
Hey guys, I have a quick question.

Suppose we have a function f that is integrable over a set [tex] S \subset \mathbb{R}^n [/tex]

If [tex] E \subset S [/tex] then does it follow that f is also integrable over E?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi JG89! :smile:

This is sadly enough not true. I'll try to explain it without going in too much detail.

The point is that the set E can be very, very ugly. Consider, for example, the function

[tex]f:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}:x\rightarrow 1[/tex]

this is a very innocent function and is certainly integrable over [0,1]. However, if I take

[tex]E=[0,1]\cap \mathbb{Q}[/tex]

then f is not integrable over E anymore (Riemann-integrable that is). The reason is that E is far too ugly.

One can solve this issue by allowing more sets E, and this yields the Lebesgue integral. This resolves the issue with [itex]E=[0,1]\cap \mathbb{Q}[/itex]. Sadly, the issue cannot be entirely resolved, as there will be (extremely ugly) sets E over which f cannot be integrable. Luckily enough, these ugly sets won't occur in daily practise. For example, if E is open or closed or the union of open/closed sets, then f will remain integrable over E. But it's important to know that there exists ugly sets over which f cannot be integrated.
 
  • #3
Sorry micromass, I forgot one condition: that E must not be of measure zero. Are there any examples with this extra hypothesis?
 
  • #4
I think the condition should be that E is measurable. Then it's true...
 
  • #5
By measurable you just mean that the set can be assigned a measure, right? So even a set of measure zero would be measurable then, right? So then what do you mean that if the set is measurable then it is true?
 
  • #6
JG89 said:
By measurable you just mean that the set can be assigned a measure, right? So even a set of measure zero would be measurable then, right? So then what do you mean that if the set is measurable then it is true?

Yes, for Lebesgue integration, if the set can be assigned a measure (even measure zero), then what you say is true.
For Riemann integration, however, it is not true. Not even if you exclude sets of measure zero. For example, take [0,2] and take [itex]E=\mathbb{Q}\cup [0,1][/tex], then f is not0 Riemann-integrable over E and E does not have measure zero.
 
  • #7
Damn, I was getting my hopes up that maybe it would be true if E weren't of measure zero! Thanks for the help though!
 

FAQ: Integrating f Over a Set: Is it Possible?

Can all functions be integrated over a set?

No, not all functions can be integrated over a set. The function must be continuous over the set and have a finite number of discontinuities within the set in order to be integrable.

What is the purpose of integrating over a set?

Integrating over a set allows us to find the total area under a curve within a specific interval. It is an important tool in calculus and is used in various applications such as finding the distance traveled by an object or the work done by a force.

Is integration over a set the same as finding the antiderivative?

No, integration over a set is not the same as finding the antiderivative. The antiderivative of a function is a function that, when differentiated, gives the original function. Integration over a set is the process of finding the area under a curve within a specific interval.

What are the different methods for integrating over a set?

There are several methods for integrating over a set, including the Riemann sum method, the Trapezoidal rule, and the Simpson's rule. These methods involve approximating the area under the curve using rectangles, trapezoids, or parabolic curves, respectively.

Can the area under a curve be negative when integrating over a set?

Yes, the area under a curve can be negative when integrating over a set. This can occur when the function being integrated is negative over the set, resulting in a negative area. However, the area under the curve is always considered to be positive in the context of integration.

Similar threads

Back
Top