Maybe anyone will help me Let f &#x2265;<!-- ≥ --> 0 . Let &#x03BC;<!-- μ -->

fetsBedscurce4why1

fetsBedscurce4why1

Answered question

2022-05-15

Maybe anyone will help me
Let f 0. Let
μ ( { x : f ( x ) > t } ) = 1 t 2 + 1
I'm trying to compute
R f d μ
To compute this, this is the approach I took. I know that the integral of a measurable function is
f d μ = sup { g d μ : g  simple , 0 g f }
Further, I know that I can represent f as a non-decreasing sequence of simple functions that converges to f, as such:
f n = n 1 B n + k = 1 n 2 n ( k 1 ) 2 n 1 A n , k
where
B n = { x : f ( x ) > n }
and
A n , k = { x : ( k 1 ) 2 n < f ( x ) k 2 n }
Now, since this sequence is increasing and converges to f, the sup of the set earlier would just be
lim n f n
But, I'm unsure how exactly to calculate this. I know that if g is a simple function such that
g = k = 1 n c k
Then
g = k = 1 n c k μ ( A k )
But, our sequence of f n has the n 1 B n as an additional term outside the summation, and for the measure of A n , k , I'm unsure if I'm allowed to say that
μ ( { x : ( k 1 ) 2 n < f ( x ) k 2 n } ) = = μ ( { x : f ( x ) > ( k 1 ) 2 n } ) μ ( { x : f ( x ) > k 2 n } )

Answer & Explanation

gudstrufy47j

gudstrufy47j

Beginner2022-05-16Added 16 answers

On any measure space ( X , F , μ ), if f : X [ 0 , ] is measurable, then
X f d μ = 0 μ ( { x X : f ( x ) > t } ) d t .
When μ is σ-finite, this is an easy consequence of Tonelli's theorem. If μ is not σ-finite, then to prove it you can first prove it when f is a simple function and then use monotone convergence theorem.

Do you have a similar question?

Recalculate according to your conditions!

Ask your question.
Get an expert answer.

Let our experts help you. Answer in as fast as 15 minutes.

Didn't find what you were looking for?