FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2 [20 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2
Author Message
David C. Ullrich
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2250

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:20 pm    Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Reply with quote

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:46:46 -0700, The World Wide Wade
<waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:

Quote:
In article <sgueb2herkgupt85h22ia599j9t90pi7dn@4ax.com>,
David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:48:58 EDT, Maury Barbato
mauriziobarbato@aruba.it> wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:

[...]

If F' = f is in L^1[a,b], then the Lebesgue integral
of f over
[a,b] equals F(b)-F(a).

True. But it's worth pointing out that one needs to
be
very careful here: This is true if F is
differentiable
at _every_ point and the derivative is integrable.

Seems like it should be pointed out, since "F' in
L^1"
is often taken to mean something very different from
that.


Out of curiosity: what is this alternative
meaning?

A few comments on that.

First, elements of L^1 are not actually functions, they're
equivalence classes of functions where two functions are
identified if they agree almost everywhere.

True if you're in the metric space L^1, but not true for
statements like "If f is in L^1(R), then lim_h->0+ 1/h *
int_(x,x+h) f = f(x) for a.e. x."

Huh?


************************

David C. Ullrich
Back to top
The World Wide Wade
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 790

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Reply with quote

Quote:
A few comments on that.

First, elements of L^1 are not actually functions, they're
equivalence classes of functions where two functions are
identified if they agree almost everywhere.

True if you're in the metric space L^1, but not true for
statements like "If f is in L^1(R), then lim_h->0+ 1/h *
int_(x,x+h) f = f(x) for a.e. x."

Huh?

If f is in L^1 the metric space, then the sentence in quotes is
nonsense; the integrals of f are well defined, but the values of
f are not. My point is that the notation L^1 is used in two ways:
in the sense you mentioned and as as a space of actual functions.
Back to top
David C. Ullrich
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2250

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:19 pm    Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Reply with quote

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:42:13 -0700, The World Wide Wade
<waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:

Quote:

A few comments on that.

First, elements of L^1 are not actually functions, they're
equivalence classes of functions where two functions are
identified if they agree almost everywhere.

True if you're in the metric space L^1, but not true for
statements like "If f is in L^1(R), then lim_h->0+ 1/h *
int_(x,x+h) f = f(x) for a.e. x."

Huh?

If f is in L^1 the metric space, then the sentence in quotes is
nonsense; the integrals of f are well defined, but the values of
f are not.

Well yes, but this applies to all sorts of statements about
L^1 "functions"; you could just as well say that "f(x) = 0 ae"
was nonsense.

Quote:
My point is that the notation L^1 is used in two ways:
in the sense you mentioned and as as a space of actual functions.

It's certainly true that the notation is used in those two
senses. But I don't think it's true that whenever we see
a statement of the sort you quoted then we must conclude
that we're talking about actual functions instead of
equivalence classes. Careful authors define L^1 to be
a space of equivalence classes and then say that if
f is in L^1 then what you said holds. Instead of saying
that such a statement means we're talking about actual
functions one can (and at least one one does<g>) take
the point of view that if f is one of those equivalence
clases then "f(x) has property P for almost all x"
means that any representative of x has property P.

If you see a sentence that says something about
f(x) for _every_ x then the author must be talking
about actual functions, but it seems to me that the
whole point to the fact that statements about
f(x) for f in L^1 always tend to include the
qualifier "ae" is that if you include the "ae"
then the meaning of the statement is well-defined
for f equal to an equivalence class.

************************

David C. Ullrich
Back to top
The World Wide Wade
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 790

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:21 am    Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Reply with quote

In article <79bkb25vrg4rh4cqbc4f17sa8i3g55b5n3@4ax.com>,
David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:

Quote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:42:13 -0700, The World Wide Wade
waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:


A few comments on that.

First, elements of L^1 are not actually functions, they're
equivalence classes of functions where two functions are
identified if they agree almost everywhere.

True if you're in the metric space L^1, but not true for
statements like "If f is in L^1(R), then lim_h->0+ 1/h *
int_(x,x+h) f = f(x) for a.e. x."

Huh?

If f is in L^1 the metric space, then the sentence in quotes is
nonsense; the integrals of f are well defined, but the values of
f are not.

Well yes, but this applies to all sorts of statements about
L^1 "functions"; you could just as well say that "f(x) = 0 ae"
was nonsense.

Yes, that would be nonsense too.

Quote:
My point is that the notation L^1 is used in two ways:
in the sense you mentioned and as as a space of actual functions.

It's certainly true that the notation is used in those two
senses.

Well then, writing "First, elements of L^1 are not actually
functions" seems a little misleading to me.

Quote:
But I don't think it's true that whenever we see
a statement of the sort you quoted then we must conclude
that we're talking about actual functions instead of
equivalence classes. Careful authors define L^1 to be
a space of equivalence classes

Not so fast. Rudin, for example, defines L^p to be a space of
measurable functions - actual functions. Later he notes that if
L^p is to be regarded as a metric space, we need to invoke
equivalence classes. But he certainly never disavows the original
definition, for good reasons IMHO.

Quote:
and then say that if
f is in L^1 then what you said holds. Instead of saying
that such a statement means we're talking about actual
functions one can (and at least one one does<g>) take
the point of view that if f is one of those equivalence
clases then "f(x) has property P for almost all x"
means that any representative of x has property P.

That solves the particular problem I brought up, but very few
authors do this. Rather, they seem to allow for the dual
interpretation of L^p that I mentioned. And this seems like the
best solution to me. How else are you going to deal with
something like the Lebesgue set of f in L^1(R^k)? (See Rudin,
Theorem 8.8 for example.)
Back to top
David C. Ullrich
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2250

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Reply with quote

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:21:26 -0700, The World Wide Wade
<waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:

Quote:
In article <79bkb25vrg4rh4cqbc4f17sa8i3g55b5n3@4ax.com>,
David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:42:13 -0700, The World Wide Wade
waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:


A few comments on that.

First, elements of L^1 are not actually functions, they're
equivalence classes of functions where two functions are
identified if they agree almost everywhere.

True if you're in the metric space L^1, but not true for
statements like "If f is in L^1(R), then lim_h->0+ 1/h *
int_(x,x+h) f = f(x) for a.e. x."

Huh?

If f is in L^1 the metric space, then the sentence in quotes is
nonsense; the integrals of f are well defined, but the values of
f are not.

Well yes, but this applies to all sorts of statements about
L^1 "functions"; you could just as well say that "f(x) = 0 ae"
was nonsense.

Yes, that would be nonsense too.

My point is that the notation L^1 is used in two ways:
in the sense you mentioned and as as a space of actual functions.

It's certainly true that the notation is used in those two
senses.

Well then, writing "First, elements of L^1 are not actually
functions" seems a little misleading to me.

But I don't think it's true that whenever we see
a statement of the sort you quoted then we must conclude
that we're talking about actual functions instead of
equivalence classes. Careful authors define L^1 to be
a space of equivalence classes

Not so fast. Rudin, for example, defines L^p to be a space of
measurable functions - actual functions. Later he notes that if
L^p is to be regarded as a metric space, we need to invoke
equivalence classes. But he certainly never disavows the original
definition,

.... ohmygod you're right. I'd be struck dead immediately if I
said I didn't approve, because this makes the meaning of the
notation dependent on our state of mind. So I won't say that.

Folland otoh labels the definition of L^1 as a space of
functions "provisional" and then half a page later says
he's going to _redefine_ the meaning of the notation.

There do exist books that have different notations
for the two objects, which seems to me like the best
course, the only problem being that then one of the
notations has to be somewhat nonstandard.

But if Rudin agrees with you then I certainly can't
claim that your convention is nonstandard.

Quote:
for good reasons IMHO.

and then say that if
f is in L^1 then what you said holds. Instead of saying
that such a statement means we're talking about actual
functions one can (and at least one one does<g>) take
the point of view that if f is one of those equivalence
clases then "f(x) has property P for almost all x"
means that any representative of x has property P.

That solves the particular problem I brought up, but very few
authors do this. Rather, they seem to allow for the dual
interpretation of L^p that I mentioned. And this seems like the
best solution to me. How else are you going to deal with
something like the Lebesgue set of f in L^1(R^k)? (See Rudin,
Theorem 8.8 for example.)

Well, the way _I'd_ define the Lebesgue set would be
as an element of the algebra of measurable sets modulo
null sets (and then of course I'd almost always ignore
this and speak of it as thought it were a set.)

************************

David C. Ullrich
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2 [20 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:37 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Newton discoveing calculus Dan in Philly Math 3 Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:25 am
No new posts Calculus Question Mitch1 Math 4 Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:46 pm
No new posts Tarski fixed-point theorem William Elliot Math 14 Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:24 am
No new posts Fundamental region for the modular group Timothy Murphy Math 5 Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:32 pm
No new posts Quasi chinese remainder theorem cliomseerg@kriocoucke.mai Math 2 Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:22 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0166s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0026s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]