This is an old revision of the document!
Last time, we considered the (long and hard) Lebesgue density theorem, which says, given any Lebesgue locally integrable function , then for almost all , the density of at exists and equals to the value .
Using this theorem, we proved that for a locally integrable function , and , a primitive is differentiable almost everywhere, and a.e. (at least at those points , where )
Unfortunately, the converse is false, namely, if you give me a continuous function , such that a.e., then I cannot conclude that is a primitive of . The famous example is 'devil's staircase', which is a continuous function on , that is constant on the complement of the Cantor set. (Discussion: how do you construct this function? )
So, how to fix this? How to rule this case out? We have the notion of 'absolutely continuous' function, it is even better than uniform continuous function (continuity on a compact set is equal to uniform continuity).
Definition : we say is absolutely continuous, if for any , there is a , such that for any countable disjoint open intervals in with total length , we have
There are equivalent conditions, where we replace 'countable' by 'finite', and replace by .
Absolutely continuous function sends null set to null set.
on is not absolutely continuous. Indeed, consider , then , hence for any , there exists , such that , and the sum .
Theorem: if is integrable, then (a) is absolutely continuous. and (b) If is an absolutely continuous function with a.e., then there is a constant , such that .
Proof: We may write , the difference of two non-negative functions. And define the primitives of as , then . If were absolutely continuous, then so will be. Hence suffice to prove (a) for the non-negative .
How to show is absolutely continuous? Given , we need to find , such that for disjoint open intervals in the domain with total measure less than , the sum of the measure of the images is less than .
If were bounded, say , then given , we can just take .
If is not bounded, then we can split to be a bounded part and an unbounded part. For any , we can define , where . Then, as , a.e., and by DCT, . Pick large enough, such that . Then, let . Then, for any countable disjoint open intervals with length , we have $$ \sum_i \int_{a_i}^b_i f(t) dt \leq \sum_i \int_{a_i}^b_i f_N(t) dt + \sum_i \int_{a_i}^b_i g_N(t) dt \leq N \delta + \int_a^b g_N \leq \epsilon/2 + \epsilon/2 = \epsilon $$ Done for (a).
(b) Suppose is some absolutely continuous function on with a.e., Then .e. Suffice to prove that if is absolutely continuous, and a.e., then . In fact, suffice to prove that , then consider restricted to ,
How to use the condition a.e.? Let be a nullset, such that if , we have . By definition, it means that . Then, we claim, for any , for any , there exists , such that if with , we have (why?). Thus, we have a Vitali covering of by closed interval. Thus, there is a countable collection of disjoint intervals , such that Since is absolutely continuous, thus for , there is a , such that implies . Let be large enough, such that . And relabel these intervals, so that , then we have Since is arbitrary, we do get .