Example where The Lebesgue Integral is Better












3












$begingroup$


What is an example that involves a fuction on an interval of the real numbers where the Lebesgue integral is better than the Riemann integral.



By better, it probably means that the Lebesgue intregral is defined while the Riemann integral is not.



By an example, I mean an example that has importance in mathematics for reasons other than just showing that the Lebesgue integral is more general than the Riemann integral. If the importance of the example is not clear, then please explain why it is important.



A possible answer could be an example where the use of the dominated convergence theorem plays a role.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I am not sure what you are looking for exactly, but I would offer that the Lebesgue spaces that can be defined are complete, metric, vector spaces. Something which is not possible with the Riemann integral. The emphasis is on completeness, which is always a very usesful thing to have.
    $endgroup$
    – Snake707
    Jan 8 at 16:02












  • $begingroup$
    You may also interested in other integral constructions as the gauge integral (also known as Henstock Kurzweil integral), see Wikipedia for more details.
    $endgroup$
    – p4sch
    Jan 13 at 21:30


















3












$begingroup$


What is an example that involves a fuction on an interval of the real numbers where the Lebesgue integral is better than the Riemann integral.



By better, it probably means that the Lebesgue intregral is defined while the Riemann integral is not.



By an example, I mean an example that has importance in mathematics for reasons other than just showing that the Lebesgue integral is more general than the Riemann integral. If the importance of the example is not clear, then please explain why it is important.



A possible answer could be an example where the use of the dominated convergence theorem plays a role.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I am not sure what you are looking for exactly, but I would offer that the Lebesgue spaces that can be defined are complete, metric, vector spaces. Something which is not possible with the Riemann integral. The emphasis is on completeness, which is always a very usesful thing to have.
    $endgroup$
    – Snake707
    Jan 8 at 16:02












  • $begingroup$
    You may also interested in other integral constructions as the gauge integral (also known as Henstock Kurzweil integral), see Wikipedia for more details.
    $endgroup$
    – p4sch
    Jan 13 at 21:30
















3












3








3


2



$begingroup$


What is an example that involves a fuction on an interval of the real numbers where the Lebesgue integral is better than the Riemann integral.



By better, it probably means that the Lebesgue intregral is defined while the Riemann integral is not.



By an example, I mean an example that has importance in mathematics for reasons other than just showing that the Lebesgue integral is more general than the Riemann integral. If the importance of the example is not clear, then please explain why it is important.



A possible answer could be an example where the use of the dominated convergence theorem plays a role.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




What is an example that involves a fuction on an interval of the real numbers where the Lebesgue integral is better than the Riemann integral.



By better, it probably means that the Lebesgue intregral is defined while the Riemann integral is not.



By an example, I mean an example that has importance in mathematics for reasons other than just showing that the Lebesgue integral is more general than the Riemann integral. If the importance of the example is not clear, then please explain why it is important.



A possible answer could be an example where the use of the dominated convergence theorem plays a role.







integration measure-theory lebesgue-integral riemann-integration






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 14 at 10:46









José Carlos Santos

156k22126227




156k22126227










asked Jan 8 at 15:55









LinearGuyLinearGuy

13711




13711








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I am not sure what you are looking for exactly, but I would offer that the Lebesgue spaces that can be defined are complete, metric, vector spaces. Something which is not possible with the Riemann integral. The emphasis is on completeness, which is always a very usesful thing to have.
    $endgroup$
    – Snake707
    Jan 8 at 16:02












  • $begingroup$
    You may also interested in other integral constructions as the gauge integral (also known as Henstock Kurzweil integral), see Wikipedia for more details.
    $endgroup$
    – p4sch
    Jan 13 at 21:30
















  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I am not sure what you are looking for exactly, but I would offer that the Lebesgue spaces that can be defined are complete, metric, vector spaces. Something which is not possible with the Riemann integral. The emphasis is on completeness, which is always a very usesful thing to have.
    $endgroup$
    – Snake707
    Jan 8 at 16:02












  • $begingroup$
    You may also interested in other integral constructions as the gauge integral (also known as Henstock Kurzweil integral), see Wikipedia for more details.
    $endgroup$
    – p4sch
    Jan 13 at 21:30










3




3




$begingroup$
I am not sure what you are looking for exactly, but I would offer that the Lebesgue spaces that can be defined are complete, metric, vector spaces. Something which is not possible with the Riemann integral. The emphasis is on completeness, which is always a very usesful thing to have.
$endgroup$
– Snake707
Jan 8 at 16:02






$begingroup$
I am not sure what you are looking for exactly, but I would offer that the Lebesgue spaces that can be defined are complete, metric, vector spaces. Something which is not possible with the Riemann integral. The emphasis is on completeness, which is always a very usesful thing to have.
$endgroup$
– Snake707
Jan 8 at 16:02














$begingroup$
You may also interested in other integral constructions as the gauge integral (also known as Henstock Kurzweil integral), see Wikipedia for more details.
$endgroup$
– p4sch
Jan 13 at 21:30






$begingroup$
You may also interested in other integral constructions as the gauge integral (also known as Henstock Kurzweil integral), see Wikipedia for more details.
$endgroup$
– p4sch
Jan 13 at 21:30












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Take the Dirichlet function (restricted to, say, $[0,1]$), for instance:




  • it is Lebesgue-integrable;

  • it is not Riemann integrable;

  • it was defined by Dirichlet before Lebesgue was even born.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    In fact the intuition behind Lebesgue integrability is that how likely the surface under a non-negative function is defined and how much is its surface (note that Lebesgue integrability is defined for non-negative functions). For example define the surface of a $1times 1$ solid square (I mean the perimeter and inside the square). If any time we remove vertical lines from the solid square (that is, removing a line from a surface) the intuition says as if "nothing" has been removed from the solid square and the area must be preserved. The intuition is show below:



    enter image description here



    As you can see, the white lines are step by step removed from the dark shaded solid square, leaving a "reduced" square which is "almost" as of the primary square (by "almost" we mean a set whose Lebesgue measure is equal to that of the primary square i.e. each time a zero-set has been subtracted from the square). Now let a function be defined as $1$ on the domain of the "reduced" square. For example let$$f_n(x)=begin{cases}1&,quad x={1over k} , text{for some }1le kle n\0 &quad text{elsewhere}end{cases}$$whose underneath surface is as follows:



    enter image description here



    Surely, $f_{infty}(x)$ exists and is Reimann un-integrable in $[0,1]$ but this is unfair under the generalization to Lebesgue integrability since the surface is "almost" the same except some zero-set infinitely many distinct lines counted and subtracted from the surface of the function. Probably, this intuition was the main lead Lebesgue to establish probably his most prominent theory on measure-sets.



    An interesting interpretation is that Reimann integral counts the surface beneath a function vertically while Lebesgue integral counts it horizontally.



    Hope I could have clarified enough so far why such a generalization exists. You are highly encouraged to check out Lebesgue integration on Wikipedia.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066343%2fexample-where-the-lebesgue-integral-is-better%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2












      $begingroup$

      Take the Dirichlet function (restricted to, say, $[0,1]$), for instance:




      • it is Lebesgue-integrable;

      • it is not Riemann integrable;

      • it was defined by Dirichlet before Lebesgue was even born.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        2












        $begingroup$

        Take the Dirichlet function (restricted to, say, $[0,1]$), for instance:




        • it is Lebesgue-integrable;

        • it is not Riemann integrable;

        • it was defined by Dirichlet before Lebesgue was even born.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          Take the Dirichlet function (restricted to, say, $[0,1]$), for instance:




          • it is Lebesgue-integrable;

          • it is not Riemann integrable;

          • it was defined by Dirichlet before Lebesgue was even born.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Take the Dirichlet function (restricted to, say, $[0,1]$), for instance:




          • it is Lebesgue-integrable;

          • it is not Riemann integrable;

          • it was defined by Dirichlet before Lebesgue was even born.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 8 at 16:01









          José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos

          156k22126227




          156k22126227























              0












              $begingroup$

              In fact the intuition behind Lebesgue integrability is that how likely the surface under a non-negative function is defined and how much is its surface (note that Lebesgue integrability is defined for non-negative functions). For example define the surface of a $1times 1$ solid square (I mean the perimeter and inside the square). If any time we remove vertical lines from the solid square (that is, removing a line from a surface) the intuition says as if "nothing" has been removed from the solid square and the area must be preserved. The intuition is show below:



              enter image description here



              As you can see, the white lines are step by step removed from the dark shaded solid square, leaving a "reduced" square which is "almost" as of the primary square (by "almost" we mean a set whose Lebesgue measure is equal to that of the primary square i.e. each time a zero-set has been subtracted from the square). Now let a function be defined as $1$ on the domain of the "reduced" square. For example let$$f_n(x)=begin{cases}1&,quad x={1over k} , text{for some }1le kle n\0 &quad text{elsewhere}end{cases}$$whose underneath surface is as follows:



              enter image description here



              Surely, $f_{infty}(x)$ exists and is Reimann un-integrable in $[0,1]$ but this is unfair under the generalization to Lebesgue integrability since the surface is "almost" the same except some zero-set infinitely many distinct lines counted and subtracted from the surface of the function. Probably, this intuition was the main lead Lebesgue to establish probably his most prominent theory on measure-sets.



              An interesting interpretation is that Reimann integral counts the surface beneath a function vertically while Lebesgue integral counts it horizontally.



              Hope I could have clarified enough so far why such a generalization exists. You are highly encouraged to check out Lebesgue integration on Wikipedia.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                In fact the intuition behind Lebesgue integrability is that how likely the surface under a non-negative function is defined and how much is its surface (note that Lebesgue integrability is defined for non-negative functions). For example define the surface of a $1times 1$ solid square (I mean the perimeter and inside the square). If any time we remove vertical lines from the solid square (that is, removing a line from a surface) the intuition says as if "nothing" has been removed from the solid square and the area must be preserved. The intuition is show below:



                enter image description here



                As you can see, the white lines are step by step removed from the dark shaded solid square, leaving a "reduced" square which is "almost" as of the primary square (by "almost" we mean a set whose Lebesgue measure is equal to that of the primary square i.e. each time a zero-set has been subtracted from the square). Now let a function be defined as $1$ on the domain of the "reduced" square. For example let$$f_n(x)=begin{cases}1&,quad x={1over k} , text{for some }1le kle n\0 &quad text{elsewhere}end{cases}$$whose underneath surface is as follows:



                enter image description here



                Surely, $f_{infty}(x)$ exists and is Reimann un-integrable in $[0,1]$ but this is unfair under the generalization to Lebesgue integrability since the surface is "almost" the same except some zero-set infinitely many distinct lines counted and subtracted from the surface of the function. Probably, this intuition was the main lead Lebesgue to establish probably his most prominent theory on measure-sets.



                An interesting interpretation is that Reimann integral counts the surface beneath a function vertically while Lebesgue integral counts it horizontally.



                Hope I could have clarified enough so far why such a generalization exists. You are highly encouraged to check out Lebesgue integration on Wikipedia.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  In fact the intuition behind Lebesgue integrability is that how likely the surface under a non-negative function is defined and how much is its surface (note that Lebesgue integrability is defined for non-negative functions). For example define the surface of a $1times 1$ solid square (I mean the perimeter and inside the square). If any time we remove vertical lines from the solid square (that is, removing a line from a surface) the intuition says as if "nothing" has been removed from the solid square and the area must be preserved. The intuition is show below:



                  enter image description here



                  As you can see, the white lines are step by step removed from the dark shaded solid square, leaving a "reduced" square which is "almost" as of the primary square (by "almost" we mean a set whose Lebesgue measure is equal to that of the primary square i.e. each time a zero-set has been subtracted from the square). Now let a function be defined as $1$ on the domain of the "reduced" square. For example let$$f_n(x)=begin{cases}1&,quad x={1over k} , text{for some }1le kle n\0 &quad text{elsewhere}end{cases}$$whose underneath surface is as follows:



                  enter image description here



                  Surely, $f_{infty}(x)$ exists and is Reimann un-integrable in $[0,1]$ but this is unfair under the generalization to Lebesgue integrability since the surface is "almost" the same except some zero-set infinitely many distinct lines counted and subtracted from the surface of the function. Probably, this intuition was the main lead Lebesgue to establish probably his most prominent theory on measure-sets.



                  An interesting interpretation is that Reimann integral counts the surface beneath a function vertically while Lebesgue integral counts it horizontally.



                  Hope I could have clarified enough so far why such a generalization exists. You are highly encouraged to check out Lebesgue integration on Wikipedia.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  In fact the intuition behind Lebesgue integrability is that how likely the surface under a non-negative function is defined and how much is its surface (note that Lebesgue integrability is defined for non-negative functions). For example define the surface of a $1times 1$ solid square (I mean the perimeter and inside the square). If any time we remove vertical lines from the solid square (that is, removing a line from a surface) the intuition says as if "nothing" has been removed from the solid square and the area must be preserved. The intuition is show below:



                  enter image description here



                  As you can see, the white lines are step by step removed from the dark shaded solid square, leaving a "reduced" square which is "almost" as of the primary square (by "almost" we mean a set whose Lebesgue measure is equal to that of the primary square i.e. each time a zero-set has been subtracted from the square). Now let a function be defined as $1$ on the domain of the "reduced" square. For example let$$f_n(x)=begin{cases}1&,quad x={1over k} , text{for some }1le kle n\0 &quad text{elsewhere}end{cases}$$whose underneath surface is as follows:



                  enter image description here



                  Surely, $f_{infty}(x)$ exists and is Reimann un-integrable in $[0,1]$ but this is unfair under the generalization to Lebesgue integrability since the surface is "almost" the same except some zero-set infinitely many distinct lines counted and subtracted from the surface of the function. Probably, this intuition was the main lead Lebesgue to establish probably his most prominent theory on measure-sets.



                  An interesting interpretation is that Reimann integral counts the surface beneath a function vertically while Lebesgue integral counts it horizontally.



                  Hope I could have clarified enough so far why such a generalization exists. You are highly encouraged to check out Lebesgue integration on Wikipedia.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Jan 14 at 20:49

























                  answered Jan 14 at 20:35









                  Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz

                  15.3k3939




                  15.3k3939






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066343%2fexample-where-the-lebesgue-integral-is-better%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      An IMO inspired problem

                      Management

                      Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?