0

Question Is it possible to have $\int_a^b f(x)dx=0$ even though $f(x)>0$ on $[a, b]$?

In the calculus class, there were some debates about the existence of $y=f(x)$, which is positive but does not have to be continuous on the given interval $I=[a, b]$, such that $$\int_a^b f(x)dx=0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \cdots (1)$$

According to the Riemann sum, one of the definitions of the integration, we can say that $$\int_a^b f(x)dx=\lim_{x\to\infty}\sum_{i=1}^nf(x_i^*)\Delta x_i$$ where $a=x_0<x_1<x_2<\cdots<x_n=b$, $\Delta x_i=x_i=x_{i-1}>0$, and $x_i^*\in[x_{i-1}, x_i] \ (i=1, 2, \cdots, n)$. Since $\lim_{x\to\infty}f(x)$ can be zero although $f(x)>0, \forall x\in\mathbb R$, we thought that $(1)$ might hold.

In addition, because there $\exists c\in[a, b]$ such that $f(c)=0$ if $f$ is continuous and $(1)$ holds(this actually can be proven using EVT and IVT), we are now just focusing on the discontinuous function to find it. I have thought of a function $y=f(x)$ satisfying $$\sum_{i=1}^n f(x_i)\cdot\frac{b-a}{n}={1\over n}$$ but it was hard to find. Another case came up my mind is $$\sum_{i=1}^n f(x_i)\cdot\frac{b-a}{n}={\sin{n}\over n}$$ and use the fact that $$\cos{1}+\cos{2}+\cdots+\cos{n}=\frac{\sin(n+{1\over2})-\sin{1\over2}}{2\sin{1\over2}}$$ but nothing works. I even have thought of the proof using weak principle of induction, that is, for $g(x)>0, \forall x\in\mathbb R$ and $\forall i\in\mathbb N, x_i\in\mathbb R$, $$(I) \ n=1: \sum_{i=1}^n g(x_i)=g(x)>0 \\ (II)\ \text{Suppose} \ n=k \ \text{holds. When} \ n=k+1, \\ \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} g(x_i)=\sum_{i=1}^{k} g(x_i)+g(x_{k+1})>0 $$ By mathematical induction, we proved that $$\forall n\in\mathbb N, \sum_{i=1}^n g(x_i)>0$$ In this logic, can we conclude that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{i=1}^ng(x_i)>0\ ?$$ If so, since $f(x_i^*)\Delta x_i>0$, I thought we cannot have a function $f$ satisfying $(1)$.

Is there a famous function that $(1)$ holds? I want to hear either various examples or the proof for the impossibility. Both are welcome. Thanks.

ToBY
  • 1,204
  • 1
    It's not possible. If the function is positive on the whole interval the integral is going to be positive. You can try to look at Dave's answer (not the accepted answer, the second one) here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/351157/is-the-riemann-integral-of-a-strictly-positive-function-positive – Mark May 04 '20 at 09:44
  • If $\lim \limits f(x)=0$ , then you have to write $\lim \int_{a}^{b} f(x)=0$. The integral(area under the curve) will also be approaching to $0$, but isn't$0$. You just mixed $=0$ and $\lim (.) = 0$ – Alapan Das May 04 '20 at 09:46
  • Your statement is presumably "since $\lim_{n\to\infty} f(x_n)$ can be zero even though $f(x)>0$". But this does not hold. – lcv May 04 '20 at 09:46
  • How about $f(x)=1/x$ and putting $x_n>0$ – ToBY May 04 '20 at 09:48
  • As you can see in that link I posted, this is not a very easy proof. It will become a much easier problem when you will learn the Lebesgue integration theory. – Mark May 04 '20 at 09:48
  • @Mark Thanks for giving the direction, sir. – ToBY May 04 '20 at 09:54

0 Answers0