Lecture 12
Upper and Lower Lebesgue integral
To deal with possibly non-integrable functions, we need to define 'upper Lebesgue integral' and 'lower Lebesgue integral', which works for non-integrable functions
∫f(x)=inf{∫g(x),g absolutely integrable, and g(x)>f(x)}
similarly for lower Lebesgue integral. By monotonicity of integral, we always have upper integral greater than lower integral.
Lemma 8.3.6 says, if a function f:Rn→R satisfies ∫f=∫f, then f is absolutely integrable. To prove it, we create a sequence that approximate f from above, fn and a sequence that approximate f from below fn, take their limit to get F+,F− with F+≥F−. Since ∫F+=∫f=∫f=∫F−, we have ∫F+−F−=0, since F+−F−≥0, we have F+=F− a.e., since F+≥f≥F−, thus f=F+ a.e., thus measurable and absolutely integrable.
Fubini
Let f(x,y):R2→R be an absolutely integrable function, then there exists integrable function F(x) and G(y), such that for a.e x, we have F(x)=∫f(x,y)dy and for a.e y, G(y)=∫f(x,y)dx, and
∫f(x,y)dxdy=∫F(x)dx=∫G(y)dy
Pf: We only consider the statement about F(x).
We introduce two non-negative functions
f−,f+ (with disjoint support) such that
f=f+−f−. Then, suppose we prove the theorem for
f+ and
f−, we can combine the result to get that of
f. Thus, we only need to deal the case where
f is non-negative.
Since
f is the sup of functions with bounded support,
f=NsupfN,fN=fχ[−N,N]×[−N,N], if
FN(x)=∫fN(x,y)dy for
x∈/ZN, then then we can define
F=supNFN, For
x∈/Z=∪NZN (countable union of null-set is still null), by monotone convergence theorem (for upward non-negative functions, we have
F(x)=NsupFN(x)=Nsup∫fN(x,y)dy=∫NsupfN(x,y)dy=∫f(x,y)dy Hence, suffice to prove the statement for functions with support in a big box
[−N,N]×[−N,N].
By since
f is
sup of simple functions, we may replace
f by simple functions, and go back to
f using monotone convergence theorem.
Replace simple function by characteristic function, by linearity of integration.
Here is the core, we only need to prove the case for
f=1E, where
E⊂[−N,N]2 is a measurable set. We claim that
∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx≤m(E). The proof of the claim is by box covering, as we did last time (see Tao for detail). Given this claim, we can now finish the proof. Let
Ec=[−N,N]2\E, then we have
4N2−∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx=∫(∫1Ec(x,y)dy)dx≤m(Ec)=4N2−m(E)
So, ∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx≥m(E)
In particular,
∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx≥∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx≥m(E)≥∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx≥∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx
Hence F+(x)=∫1E(x,y)dy is integrable. Similarly
∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx≥m(E)≥∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx≥∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx≥∫(∫1E(x,y)dy)dx
thus F−(x)=∫1E(x,y)dy is integrable. And, we have
∫F+(x)dx=∫F−(x)dx
hence F+(x)=F−(x) for almost all x. Thus, for a.e. x, we have ∫f(x,y)dy=∫f(x,y)dy, thus ∫f(x,y)dy exists for a.e. x.
A Lemma
Suppose A is measurable, and B⊂A any subset, with Bc=A\B. Then
m(A)=m∗(B)+m∗(Bc)
Proof:
m∗(B)=inf{m(C)∣A⊃C⊃B,Cmeasurable}=inf{m(A)−m(Cc)∣A⊃C⊃B,Cmeasurable}
=m(A)−sup{m(Cc)∣A⊃C⊃B,Cmeasurable}=m(A)−sup{m(Cc)∣Cc⊂Bc,Ccmeasurable}=m(A)−m∗(Bc)
Pugh 6.8: Vitali Covering
A Vitali covering V of a set A⊂Rn is such that, for any p∈A,r>0, there is a covering set V∈V, such that {p}⊊V⊂Br(p), where Br(p) is the open ball of radius r around p.
Vitali Covering Lemma: Let V be a Vitali covering of a measurable bounded subset A by closed balls, then for any ϵ>0, there is a countable disjoint subcollection V′={V1,V2,⋯}, such that A\∪kVk is a null set, and ∑km(Vk)≤m(A)+ϵ.
Proof: The construction is easy, like a 'greedy algorithm'. First, using the given ϵ, we find an open subset W⊃A, with m(W)≤m(A)+ϵ. Let V1={V∈V:V⊂W}, and d1=sup{diamV:V∈V1}. We pick V1∈V1 where the diameter is sufficiently large, say diamV1>d1/2. Then, we delete V1 from W, let W2=W\V1, and consider V2={V∈V1,V⊂W2}, and define d2=sup{diamV:V∈V2}, and pick V2 among V2 so that diamV2>d2/2. Repeat this process, we get a collection of disjoint closed balls {Vi}. Suffice to show that A\∪Vi is a null set.
The crucial claim is the following, for any positive integer N, we have
∪k=N∞5Vk⊃A\(∪i=1N−1Vi)
Suppose not, and there is a point a∈A\(∪i=1N−1Vi), but not in ∪k=N∞5Vk, then we can find a closed ball B∈VN, such that a∈B. Since a∈/5VN, we have B⊂5VN. This implies B∩VN=∅. Draw a picture. This implies B∈VN+1. Then, repeat the above story N replaced by N+1 and same a,B, we can keep going and show that B∈Vk for all k≥N. That cannot be true, since dk→0, but B has fixed radius.