4

Let $f\ge0$ be integrable on $[a,b]$. Let $f$ be continuous on $x_0\in (a,b)$ and let $f(x_0)>0$.

Prove $$\int_{a}^{b}{f(x)dx}>0$$

It is easy to see it, graphically, because $$f\ge 0 \Rightarrow\int_{a}^{b}{f(x)dx}\ge0$$

and if $f>0$ somewhere between $a$ and $b$, then the zone of $F$ between those point is "real" (positive) and $\ne 0$.

My problem is, how do I show it formally?

I would appreciate your help.

Aaron Maroja
  • 17,571

5 Answers5

4

Hint:

Let $m = \frac{f(x_0)}{2}$. There exists $\delta > 0$ such that $f(x) > m$ for all $x \in [x_0 - \delta, x_0 +\delta]$. Take any partition $P$ of $[a,b]$ that contains the points $x_0 - \delta$ and $x_0 +\delta$, then we have

$$L(f:P) > 2m\delta \tag {*}$$

Thus as $f$ is integrable

$$\int_a^bf(x) \,dx \geq L(f:P) > 2m\delta$$

Edit: $(*)$

Notice that for some $s \in \{0,1,\ldots, n\}$ we have that $$m_s = \inf _{f \in [x_0 -\delta, x_0 + \delta ]} f \geq m > 0$$Now if you split $$L(f;P) = \sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \underbrace{m_i}_{\geq 0}\underbrace{\Delta_{i-1}}_{>0} + \underbrace{m_s}_{\geq m}\underbrace{\Delta_{s-1}}_{\geq 2m\delta} + \sum_{i=s+1}^{n} \underbrace{m_i}_{\geq 0}\underbrace{\Delta_{i-1}}_{>0} \geq m(x_0 - \delta , x_0 + \delta) > 2m\delta $$

Aaron Maroja
  • 17,571
  • You seem to be assuming $;x_0;$ is a minimal point of $;\frac{f(x)}2;$ . Why? – Timbuc Mar 27 '15 at 18:40
  • I don't really understand what $L(f:P). – Meitar Abarbanel Mar 27 '15 at 18:50
  • @AaronMaroja I just can't understand that. What if $;m:=f(x_0);$ is the maximum of $;f;$ on $;[a,b];$ ? Or even better: what if $;f(x_0);$ is not a local extreme point of $;f;$ at all?! – Timbuc Mar 27 '15 at 18:55
  • Make sure you have tried something first, before looking the answer. – Aaron Maroja Mar 27 '15 at 18:57
  • @AaronMaroja You still continue to assume $;m=f(x_0);$ is some kind of minimal point of $;f;$ somewhere. Do you care to explain this? – Timbuc Mar 27 '15 at 19:05
  • 2
    @Timbuc Okay, let's get back to real analysis 101. If we take $\epsilon = \frac{f(x_0)}{2} > 0$ then there surely exists $\delta > 0$ (due to the continuity of $f$ at $x_0$) such that $$x \in (x_0 -\delta, x_0 + \delta) \implies f(x) > f(x_0) -\frac{f(x_0)}{2} = \frac{f(x_0)}{2}$$

    Are you pleased now? Can I have my points back?

    – Aaron Maroja Mar 27 '15 at 19:17
  • @MeitarAbarbanel It's the lower sum. – Aaron Maroja Mar 27 '15 at 19:35
  • @AaronMaroja So sorry for your points, but I almost never downvote (not even if the answer has some big mistake) , and neither did this time. I think downloading is mostly for losers, in particular if they do it without explaining. And thanks for the invitation to analysis 101, though it took you quite some time to address my question. – Timbuc Mar 27 '15 at 19:56
  • @Timbuc You know, it's really important for the student to think over a problem for quite some time, that's why I just gave a hint, and that's precisely the reason I didn't address to your question. It makes you mature faster, and you totally took this learning time from Meitar. Anyways, it's cool. – Aaron Maroja Mar 27 '15 at 20:08
  • @AaronMaroja Oh, don't worry about Meitar: she seems to be out of the site for quite some time now. And I don't think your hint would have been hurt if you had answered my question before – Timbuc Mar 27 '15 at 20:10
  • @Timbuc I just don't agree. Using the hypothesis is essential on that part. You wouldn't have a $\delta$ to work with in the first place, and for some bad sketching of yours you just couldn't see that and were asking something completely out of question. All I'm asking is: be patient next time and don't spoil all the fun. – Aaron Maroja Mar 27 '15 at 20:16
  • @AaronMaroja Fair request from you, Aaron. But maybe next time you will also tell that to whomever asks you something. Had you written that you're waiting some time to pass for the OP to think on this or that and I would have waited. Thank you. – Timbuc Mar 27 '15 at 20:19
  • @Timbuc No problem, note taken. Even though I'm pretty sure the word hint gives you that. – Aaron Maroja Mar 27 '15 at 20:20
3

Look at the point $x_0$. Positivity and continuity imply that $f(x) > 0$ for a lot of points near $x_0$. Fix some $0 < \varepsilon < f(x_0)$. By the definition of continuity, there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that $$x \in [a, b]\, \text{ and }\,0 < |x - x_0| < \delta \implies |f(x) - f(x_0)| < \varepsilon.$$ Of course, $x = x_0$ also implies $|f(x) - f(x_0)| < \varepsilon$, and we can shrink $\delta$ (if necessary) to get the following stronger statement: $$x \in [x_0-\delta, x_0+\delta] \implies |f(x) - f(x_0)| < \varepsilon.$$ Now, $|f(x) - f(x_0)| < \varepsilon$ implies $f(x) > f(x_0) - \varepsilon$, and that lower bound is positive by choice of $\varepsilon$. This means that under the curve $y = f(x)$ we have a little solid rectangle with base $[x_0-\delta, x_0+\delta]$ reaching up to the line $y = f(x_0) - \varepsilon$. So, $\int_a^b f(x)\,dx$ is at least the area of this rectangle, namely $2\delta(f(x_0)-\varepsilon)$, and this is positive.

Unit
  • 7,601
2

An idea:

We're given $\;f\;$ is continuous and non-negative on $\;(a,b)\;$ and such that for some $\;x_0\in (a,b)\;,\;\;f(x_0)>0\;$ .

From continuity we get that there exists $\;\epsilon>0\;$ s.t. $\;f(x)>0\;\;\;\forall\;x\in (x_0-\epsilon\,,\,\,x_0+\epsilon)\;$ .

Since we're given $\;f\;$ is integrable and non-negative in $\;[a,b]\;$ , we then get

$$\int_a^b f(x)\,dx\ge\int_{x_0-\epsilon}^{x_0+\epsilon}f(x)\,dx>0$$

and we're done.

Timbuc
  • 34,191
  • Saying that $\int_{x_0-\epsilon}^{x_0+\epsilon} f(x),dx > 0$ since $f(x) > 0$ for all $x \in (x_0-\epsilon,x_0+\epsilon)$ essentially relies on what the OP is asking to prove, no? – Santiago Canez Mar 27 '15 at 19:42
  • No, not really, and that's why I asked her whether she already knew that. Now, if she answers and says sho doesn't then it is pretty easy to show this. – Timbuc Mar 27 '15 at 19:54
  • How do you show this without (essentially) first proving the claim in the original post? – Santiago Canez Mar 27 '15 at 20:11
  • @SantiagoCanez Directly: if $;f(x)>0;;;\forall,x\in[a,b];$ and continuous there, then it is integrable and we can take any partitions of the interval we like as far as they fulfill the conditions for the integral. Now, Weierstrass Boundness Theorem tells us $;f;$ is bounded below and it attains its minimum there, say $$m=\min_{x\in[a,b]} f(x)=f(w)>0$$ Thus, for any Riemann sum (i.e., for any valid partition of the interval) we get $$\sum_{i=1}^n f(c_i)(x_i-x_{i-1})\ge f(w)\sum_{i=1}^n (x_i-x_{i-1})=f(w)(b-a)>0$$ – Timbuc Mar 27 '15 at 20:15
  • 1
    Fair enough. Thanks. – Santiago Canez Mar 27 '15 at 20:16
  • Marvelous.
  • I am a male.
  • I did not know, however, that if $f>0$ on $I$ then $\int f>0$.
  • I shall try to understand your explanation.

    – Meitar Abarbanel Mar 27 '15 at 21:11
  • @MeitarAbarbanel (1) Thank you, (2) sorry: the only Meitar I ever met was a girl, (3) any doubt ask. – Timbuc Mar 27 '15 at 21:13
  • The only wondering left is; how can I explain that $\int_{a}^{b}f$ is greater than an integral from $x$ to $y$ where $x,y$ are respectively smaller than $a,b$? I went through the definition, claims, and theorems, and didn't find something that can help me. Is a thorough proof required? – Meitar Abarbanel Mar 27 '15 at 21:22
  • 1
    That is because the non-negativity. I see. So all the addends are non-negative. Makes sense. – Meitar Abarbanel Mar 27 '15 at 21:25