Why isn't integral defined as the area under the graph of function?
$begingroup$
In order to define Lebesgue integral, we have to develop some measure theory. This takes some effort in the classroom, after which we need additional effort of defining Lebesgue integral (which also adds a layer of complexity). Why do we do it this way?
The first question is to what extent are the notions different. I believe that a bounded measurable function can have a non-measurable "area under graph" (it should be doable by transfinite induction), but I am not completely sure, so treat it as a part of my question.
What are the advantages of the Lebesgue integration over area-under-graph integration? I believe that behaviour under limits may be indeed worse. Is it indeed the main reason? Or maybe we could develop integration with this alternative approach?
Note that if a non-negative function has a measurable area under graph, then the area under the graph is the same as the Lebesgue integral by Fubini's theorem, so the two integrals shouldn't behave very differently.
real-analysis measure-theory mathematics-education
edited 9 mins ago
Community♦
123
asked 1 hour ago
user57888user57888
30827
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
In order to define Lebesgue integral, we have to develop some measure theory. This takes some effort in the classroom, after which we need additional effort of defining Lebesgue integral (which also adds a layer of complexity). Why do we do it this way?
The first question is to what extent are the notions different. I believe that a bounded measurable function can have a non-measurable "area under graph" (it should be doable by transfinite induction), but I am not completely sure, so treat it as a part of my question.
What are the advantages of the Lebesgue integration over area-under-graph integration? I believe that behaviour under limits may be indeed worse. Is it indeed the main reason? Or maybe we could develop integration with this alternative approach?
Note that if a non-negative function has a measurable area under graph, then the area under the graph is the same as the Lebesgue integral by Fubini's theorem, so the two integrals shouldn't behave very differently.
real-analysis measure-theory mathematics-education
edited 9 mins ago
Community♦
123
asked 1 hour ago
user57888user57888
30827
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that the point of defining the integral is to come up with a notion of "area under the graph". This notion does not exist a priori. In reality, we can't geometrically compute areas except of very specific figures, mainly rectilinear ones. As to why we have to define measure theory, perhaps look at the answer on this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/7436/lebesgue-integral-basics
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
48 mins ago
4
$begingroup$
I think the question is why develop integration theory in addition to measure theory. Once you have measure theory, just define the integral to be the measure of the region under the graph. Right?
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin Well, once you defined Lebesgue measure, you can define area under graph as measure of the set of points under graph. EDIT: I've written a couple of seconds too late.
$endgroup$
– user57888
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user57888: you define measure theory because you are trying to define the Lebesgue integral. How would you actually compute the value of integrals using your idea?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
39 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin You show that your new integral is the same as Riemann integral whenever applicable, the same way you do it for Lebesgue integral.
$endgroup$
– user57888
32 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
In order to define Lebesgue integral, we have to develop some measure theory. This takes some effort in the classroom, after which we need additional effort of defining Lebesgue integral (which also adds a layer of complexity). Why do we do it this way?
The first question is to what extent are the notions different. I believe that a bounded measurable function can have a non-measurable "area under graph" (it should be doable by transfinite induction), but I am not completely sure, so treat it as a part of my question.
What are the advantages of the Lebesgue integration over area-under-graph integration? I believe that behaviour under limits may be indeed worse. Is it indeed the main reason? Or maybe we could develop integration with this alternative approach?
Note that if a non-negative function has a measurable area under graph, then the area under the graph is the same as the Lebesgue integral by Fubini's theorem, so the two integrals shouldn't behave very differently.
real-analysis measure-theory mathematics-education
edited 9 mins ago
Community♦
123
asked 1 hour ago
user57888user57888
30827
$endgroup$
In order to define Lebesgue integral, we have to develop some measure theory. This takes some effort in the classroom, after which we need additional effort of defining Lebesgue integral (which also adds a layer of complexity). Why do we do it this way?
The first question is to what extent are the notions different. I believe that a bounded measurable function can have a non-measurable "area under graph" (it should be doable by transfinite induction), but I am not completely sure, so treat it as a part of my question.
What are the advantages of the Lebesgue integration over area-under-graph integration? I believe that behaviour under limits may be indeed worse. Is it indeed the main reason? Or maybe we could develop integration with this alternative approach?
Note that if a non-negative function has a measurable area under graph, then the area under the graph is the same as the Lebesgue integral by Fubini's theorem, so the two integrals shouldn't behave very differently.
real-analysis measure-theory mathematics-education
real-analysis measure-theory mathematics-education
edited 9 mins ago
Community♦
123
asked 1 hour ago
user57888user57888
30827
edited 9 mins ago
Community♦
123
asked 1 hour ago
user57888user57888
30827
edited 9 mins ago
Community♦
123
edited 9 mins ago
Community♦
123
edited 9 mins ago
Community♦
123
123
asked 1 hour ago
user57888user57888
30827
asked 1 hour ago
user57888user57888
30827
asked 1 hour ago
user57888user57888
30827
30827
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that the point of defining the integral is to come up with a notion of "area under the graph". This notion does not exist a priori. In reality, we can't geometrically compute areas except of very specific figures, mainly rectilinear ones. As to why we have to define measure theory, perhaps look at the answer on this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/7436/lebesgue-integral-basics
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
48 mins ago
4
$begingroup$
I think the question is why develop integration theory in addition to measure theory. Once you have measure theory, just define the integral to be the measure of the region under the graph. Right?
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin Well, once you defined Lebesgue measure, you can define area under graph as measure of the set of points under graph. EDIT: I've written a couple of seconds too late.
$endgroup$
– user57888
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user57888: you define measure theory because you are trying to define the Lebesgue integral. How would you actually compute the value of integrals using your idea?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
39 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin You show that your new integral is the same as Riemann integral whenever applicable, the same way you do it for Lebesgue integral.
$endgroup$
– user57888
32 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that the point of defining the integral is to come up with a notion of "area under the graph". This notion does not exist a priori. In reality, we can't geometrically compute areas except of very specific figures, mainly rectilinear ones. As to why we have to define measure theory, perhaps look at the answer on this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/7436/lebesgue-integral-basics
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
48 mins ago
4
$begingroup$
I think the question is why develop integration theory in addition to measure theory. Once you have measure theory, just define the integral to be the measure of the region under the graph. Right?
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin Well, once you defined Lebesgue measure, you can define area under graph as measure of the set of points under graph. EDIT: I've written a couple of seconds too late.
$endgroup$
– user57888
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user57888: you define measure theory because you are trying to define the Lebesgue integral. How would you actually compute the value of integrals using your idea?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
39 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin You show that your new integral is the same as Riemann integral whenever applicable, the same way you do it for Lebesgue integral.
$endgroup$
– user57888
32 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that the point of defining the integral is to come up with a notion of "area under the graph". This notion does not exist a priori. In reality, we can't geometrically compute areas except of very specific figures, mainly rectilinear ones. As to why we have to define measure theory, perhaps look at the answer on this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/7436/lebesgue-integral-basics
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
You do realize that the point of defining the integral is to come up with a notion of "area under the graph". This notion does not exist a priori. In reality, we can't geometrically compute areas except of very specific figures, mainly rectilinear ones. As to why we have to define measure theory, perhaps look at the answer on this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/7436/lebesgue-integral-basics
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
48 mins ago
4
4
$begingroup$
I think the question is why develop integration theory in addition to measure theory. Once you have measure theory, just define the integral to be the measure of the region under the graph. Right?
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
I think the question is why develop integration theory in addition to measure theory. Once you have measure theory, just define the integral to be the measure of the region under the graph. Right?
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin Well, once you defined Lebesgue measure, you can define area under graph as measure of the set of points under graph. EDIT: I've written a couple of seconds too late.
$endgroup$
– user57888
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin Well, once you defined Lebesgue measure, you can define area under graph as measure of the set of points under graph. EDIT: I've written a couple of seconds too late.
$endgroup$
– user57888
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user57888: you define measure theory because you are trying to define the Lebesgue integral. How would you actually compute the value of integrals using your idea?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
39 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user57888: you define measure theory because you are trying to define the Lebesgue integral. How would you actually compute the value of integrals using your idea?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
39 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin You show that your new integral is the same as Riemann integral whenever applicable, the same way you do it for Lebesgue integral.
$endgroup$
– user57888
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin You show that your new integral is the same as Riemann integral whenever applicable, the same way you do it for Lebesgue integral.
$endgroup$
– user57888
32 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If $f: mathbb{R} to [0,infty)$ is Borel (or Lebesgue) measurable, then for each rational $a > 0$ define $X_a = f^{-1}([a,infty)) times [0,a)$. Then each $X_a$ is measurable and their union is exactly the region under the graph. So the region under the graph is measurable.
I think the reason why we develop the Lebesgue integral in the usual way is because it provides a powerful technique (characteristic functions --> simple functions --> arbitrary measurable functions) for deriving the basic theory of the integral. Even simple things like $int f + int g = int (f + g)$ aren't obvious if you take "measure of the region under the graph" as the definition.
answered 33 mins ago
Nik WeaverNik Weaver
20.6k147127
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There are uncountably many of $X_a$, so I'm not sure i follow your argument.
$endgroup$
– user57888
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I said rational $a > 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
Right, right, right. Ok, sorry for my mistake.
$endgroup$
– user57888
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
Don't worry about it!
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Actually, in the book:
Pugh, C. C. Real mathematical analysis. Second edition. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2015.
The Lebesgue integral is defined the way you suggested. First we define the planar Lebesgue measure $m_2$. Then we define the Lebesgue integral as follows:
Definition. The undergraph of $f:mathbb{R}to[0,infty)$ is $$ mathcal{U}f={(x,y)inmathbb{R}times [0,infty):0leq y<f(x)}. $$ The
function $f$ is Lebesgue measurable if $mathcal{U}f$ is Lebesgue measurable
with respect to the planar Lebesgue measure and then we define $$
int_{mathbb{R}} f=m_2(mathcal{U}f). $$
I find this approach quite nice if you want to have a quick intoroduction to the Lebesgue integration. For example you get the monotone convergence theorem for free: it is a straightforward consequence of the fact that the measure of the union of an increasing sequence of sets is the limit of measures.
answered 9 mins ago
Piotr HajlaszPiotr Hajlasz
7,48942558
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wow! I'm going to have to look that up.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
6 mins ago
$begingroup$
How do you find it in practice (if you know the book)? Does the author struggle with some added difficulties?
$endgroup$
– user57888
5 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f321916%2fwhy-isnt-integral-defined-as-the-area-under-the-graph-of-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If $f: mathbb{R} to [0,infty)$ is Borel (or Lebesgue) measurable, then for each rational $a > 0$ define $X_a = f^{-1}([a,infty)) times [0,a)$. Then each $X_a$ is measurable and their union is exactly the region under the graph. So the region under the graph is measurable.
I think the reason why we develop the Lebesgue integral in the usual way is because it provides a powerful technique (characteristic functions --> simple functions --> arbitrary measurable functions) for deriving the basic theory of the integral. Even simple things like $int f + int g = int (f + g)$ aren't obvious if you take "measure of the region under the graph" as the definition.
answered 33 mins ago
Nik WeaverNik Weaver
20.6k147127
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There are uncountably many of $X_a$, so I'm not sure i follow your argument.
$endgroup$
– user57888
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I said rational $a > 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
Right, right, right. Ok, sorry for my mistake.
$endgroup$
– user57888
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
Don't worry about it!
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $f: mathbb{R} to [0,infty)$ is Borel (or Lebesgue) measurable, then for each rational $a > 0$ define $X_a = f^{-1}([a,infty)) times [0,a)$. Then each $X_a$ is measurable and their union is exactly the region under the graph. So the region under the graph is measurable.
I think the reason why we develop the Lebesgue integral in the usual way is because it provides a powerful technique (characteristic functions --> simple functions --> arbitrary measurable functions) for deriving the basic theory of the integral. Even simple things like $int f + int g = int (f + g)$ aren't obvious if you take "measure of the region under the graph" as the definition.
answered 33 mins ago
Nik WeaverNik Weaver
20.6k147127
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There are uncountably many of $X_a$, so I'm not sure i follow your argument.
$endgroup$
– user57888
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I said rational $a > 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
Right, right, right. Ok, sorry for my mistake.
$endgroup$
– user57888
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
Don't worry about it!
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $f: mathbb{R} to [0,infty)$ is Borel (or Lebesgue) measurable, then for each rational $a > 0$ define $X_a = f^{-1}([a,infty)) times [0,a)$. Then each $X_a$ is measurable and their union is exactly the region under the graph. So the region under the graph is measurable.
I think the reason why we develop the Lebesgue integral in the usual way is because it provides a powerful technique (characteristic functions --> simple functions --> arbitrary measurable functions) for deriving the basic theory of the integral. Even simple things like $int f + int g = int (f + g)$ aren't obvious if you take "measure of the region under the graph" as the definition.
answered 33 mins ago
Nik WeaverNik Weaver
20.6k147127
$endgroup$
If $f: mathbb{R} to [0,infty)$ is Borel (or Lebesgue) measurable, then for each rational $a > 0$ define $X_a = f^{-1}([a,infty)) times [0,a)$. Then each $X_a$ is measurable and their union is exactly the region under the graph. So the region under the graph is measurable.
I think the reason why we develop the Lebesgue integral in the usual way is because it provides a powerful technique (characteristic functions --> simple functions --> arbitrary measurable functions) for deriving the basic theory of the integral. Even simple things like $int f + int g = int (f + g)$ aren't obvious if you take "measure of the region under the graph" as the definition.
answered 33 mins ago
Nik WeaverNik Weaver
20.6k147127
answered 33 mins ago
Nik WeaverNik Weaver
20.6k147127
answered 33 mins ago
Nik WeaverNik Weaver
20.6k147127
answered 33 mins ago
Nik WeaverNik Weaver
20.6k147127
20.6k147127
$begingroup$
There are uncountably many of $X_a$, so I'm not sure i follow your argument.
$endgroup$
– user57888
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I said rational $a > 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
Right, right, right. Ok, sorry for my mistake.
$endgroup$
– user57888
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
Don't worry about it!
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are uncountably many of $X_a$, so I'm not sure i follow your argument.
$endgroup$
– user57888
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I said rational $a > 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
Right, right, right. Ok, sorry for my mistake.
$endgroup$
– user57888
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
Don't worry about it!
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
26 mins ago
$begingroup$
There are uncountably many of $X_a$, so I'm not sure i follow your argument.
$endgroup$
– user57888
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
There are uncountably many of $X_a$, so I'm not sure i follow your argument.
$endgroup$
– user57888
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I said rational $a > 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
I said rational $a > 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
Right, right, right. Ok, sorry for my mistake.
$endgroup$
– user57888
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
Right, right, right. Ok, sorry for my mistake.
$endgroup$
– user57888
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
Don't worry about it!
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
26 mins ago
$begingroup$
Don't worry about it!
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Actually, in the book:
Pugh, C. C. Real mathematical analysis. Second edition. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2015.
The Lebesgue integral is defined the way you suggested. First we define the planar Lebesgue measure $m_2$. Then we define the Lebesgue integral as follows:
Definition. The undergraph of $f:mathbb{R}to[0,infty)$ is $$ mathcal{U}f={(x,y)inmathbb{R}times [0,infty):0leq y<f(x)}. $$ The
function $f$ is Lebesgue measurable if $mathcal{U}f$ is Lebesgue measurable
with respect to the planar Lebesgue measure and then we define $$
int_{mathbb{R}} f=m_2(mathcal{U}f). $$
I find this approach quite nice if you want to have a quick intoroduction to the Lebesgue integration. For example you get the monotone convergence theorem for free: it is a straightforward consequence of the fact that the measure of the union of an increasing sequence of sets is the limit of measures.
answered 9 mins ago
Piotr HajlaszPiotr Hajlasz
7,48942558
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wow! I'm going to have to look that up.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
6 mins ago
$begingroup$
How do you find it in practice (if you know the book)? Does the author struggle with some added difficulties?
$endgroup$
– user57888
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Actually, in the book:
Pugh, C. C. Real mathematical analysis. Second edition. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2015.
The Lebesgue integral is defined the way you suggested. First we define the planar Lebesgue measure $m_2$. Then we define the Lebesgue integral as follows:
Definition. The undergraph of $f:mathbb{R}to[0,infty)$ is $$ mathcal{U}f={(x,y)inmathbb{R}times [0,infty):0leq y<f(x)}. $$ The
function $f$ is Lebesgue measurable if $mathcal{U}f$ is Lebesgue measurable
with respect to the planar Lebesgue measure and then we define $$
int_{mathbb{R}} f=m_2(mathcal{U}f). $$
I find this approach quite nice if you want to have a quick intoroduction to the Lebesgue integration. For example you get the monotone convergence theorem for free: it is a straightforward consequence of the fact that the measure of the union of an increasing sequence of sets is the limit of measures.
answered 9 mins ago
Piotr HajlaszPiotr Hajlasz
7,48942558
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wow! I'm going to have to look that up.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
6 mins ago
$begingroup$
How do you find it in practice (if you know the book)? Does the author struggle with some added difficulties?
$endgroup$
– user57888
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Actually, in the book:
Pugh, C. C. Real mathematical analysis. Second edition. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2015.
The Lebesgue integral is defined the way you suggested. First we define the planar Lebesgue measure $m_2$. Then we define the Lebesgue integral as follows:
Definition. The undergraph of $f:mathbb{R}to[0,infty)$ is $$ mathcal{U}f={(x,y)inmathbb{R}times [0,infty):0leq y<f(x)}. $$ The
function $f$ is Lebesgue measurable if $mathcal{U}f$ is Lebesgue measurable
with respect to the planar Lebesgue measure and then we define $$
int_{mathbb{R}} f=m_2(mathcal{U}f). $$
I find this approach quite nice if you want to have a quick intoroduction to the Lebesgue integration. For example you get the monotone convergence theorem for free: it is a straightforward consequence of the fact that the measure of the union of an increasing sequence of sets is the limit of measures.
answered 9 mins ago
Piotr HajlaszPiotr Hajlasz
7,48942558
$endgroup$
Actually, in the book:
Pugh, C. C. Real mathematical analysis. Second edition. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2015.
The Lebesgue integral is defined the way you suggested. First we define the planar Lebesgue measure $m_2$. Then we define the Lebesgue integral as follows:
Definition. The undergraph of $f:mathbb{R}to[0,infty)$ is $$ mathcal{U}f={(x,y)inmathbb{R}times [0,infty):0leq y<f(x)}. $$ The
function $f$ is Lebesgue measurable if $mathcal{U}f$ is Lebesgue measurable
with respect to the planar Lebesgue measure and then we define $$
int_{mathbb{R}} f=m_2(mathcal{U}f). $$
I find this approach quite nice if you want to have a quick intoroduction to the Lebesgue integration. For example you get the monotone convergence theorem for free: it is a straightforward consequence of the fact that the measure of the union of an increasing sequence of sets is the limit of measures.
answered 9 mins ago
Piotr HajlaszPiotr Hajlasz
7,48942558
edited 3 mins ago
answered 9 mins ago
Piotr HajlaszPiotr Hajlasz
7,48942558
answered 9 mins ago
Piotr HajlaszPiotr Hajlasz
7,48942558
answered 9 mins ago
Piotr HajlaszPiotr Hajlasz
7,48942558
7,48942558
$begingroup$
Wow! I'm going to have to look that up.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
6 mins ago
$begingroup$
How do you find it in practice (if you know the book)? Does the author struggle with some added difficulties?
$endgroup$
– user57888
5 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Wow! I'm going to have to look that up.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
6 mins ago
$begingroup$
How do you find it in practice (if you know the book)? Does the author struggle with some added difficulties?
$endgroup$
– user57888
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
Wow! I'm going to have to look that up.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
6 mins ago
$begingroup$
Wow! I'm going to have to look that up.
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
6 mins ago
$begingroup$
How do you find it in practice (if you know the book)? Does the author struggle with some added difficulties?
$endgroup$
– user57888
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
How do you find it in practice (if you know the book)? Does the author struggle with some added difficulties?
$endgroup$
– user57888
5 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f321916%2fwhy-isnt-integral-defined-as-the-area-under-the-graph-of-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that the point of defining the integral is to come up with a notion of "area under the graph". This notion does not exist a priori. In reality, we can't geometrically compute areas except of very specific figures, mainly rectilinear ones. As to why we have to define measure theory, perhaps look at the answer on this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/7436/lebesgue-integral-basics
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
48 mins ago
4
$begingroup$
I think the question is why develop integration theory in addition to measure theory. Once you have measure theory, just define the integral to be the measure of the region under the graph. Right?
$endgroup$
– Nik Weaver
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin Well, once you defined Lebesgue measure, you can define area under graph as measure of the set of points under graph. EDIT: I've written a couple of seconds too late.
$endgroup$
– user57888
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user57888: you define measure theory because you are trying to define the Lebesgue integral. How would you actually compute the value of integrals using your idea?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
39 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArturoMagidin You show that your new integral is the same as Riemann integral whenever applicable, the same way you do it for Lebesgue integral.
$endgroup$
– user57888
32 mins ago