4
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Stated as it is, it's not true. You may want to clarify the hypothesis $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ What is not true? That is why I am in need of assistance. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 18:29
  • $\begingroup$ Question for clarification: is this a good rephrasing of your question: "if $f$ is a nonnegative continuous function on $[a,b]$ and there exists $x_0 \in (a,b)$ such that $f(x_0) >0$, then is it true that $\int_a^b f(x) \, dx > 0$"? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 18:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MartinR, doesn't continuity ensure that there is more than one positive point? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ Oops, I had overlooked the continuity! Sorry !!! – Comment deleted. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 18:33

5 Answers 5

4
$\begingroup$

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 $$L(f;P) = \sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \underbrace{m_i}_{\geq 0}\underbrace{\Delta_{i-1}}_{>0} + \underbrace{m_s}_{\geq m}\underbrace{\Delta_{s-1}}_{\geq 2m\delta} + \sum_{i=s+1}^{n} \underbrace{m_i}_{\geq 0}\underbrace{\Delta_{i-1}}_{>0} \geq m(x_0 - \delta , x_0 + \delta) > 2m\delta $$

$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ You seem to be assuming $\;x_0\;$ is a minimal point of $\;\frac{f(x)}2\;$ . Why? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ I don't really understand what $L(f:P). $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 18:50
  • $\begingroup$ @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?! $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 18:55
  • $\begingroup$ Make sure you have tried something first, before looking the answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 18:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @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? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 19:17
3
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ How do you show this without (essentially) first proving the claim in the original post? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 20:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fair enough. Thanks. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 20:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That is because the non-negativity. I see. So all the addends are non-negative. Makes sense. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 21:25
1
$\begingroup$

Bound the integral below by the usual lower-sum approximation, choosing the left endpoint of each interval for the height. Then you will have a non-negative lower bound.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

All the proofs I have seen use the fact that if $f$ is continuous and $f(x_0) > 0$, then $f$ is positive on a small interval. Here is a proof that does not use such an argument.

By contrapositive, let's suppose that $f : [a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous, non-negative, and satisfies $\displaystyle\int_a^b f(t) dt = 0$.

Let $F$ denote a primitive function of $F$ on $[a,b]$ (which exists because $f$ is continuous). Then $0=\displaystyle\int_a^b f(t) dt = F(b)-F(a)$, so $F(a)=F(b)$. But $F'=f \geq 0$, so $F$ is increasing.

This implies directly that $F$ is constant, hence $f=0$.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.