We are given that:
"If $g$ is a continuous nonnegative function on $[a,b]$ and if $\int_{a}^{b}g=0$, then $g$ is identically $0$ on $[a,b]$."
First of, the proof is done by contradiction. I am unsure if the contradiction is the following: "If $g$ is a continuous.... then there exists some $x$ in $[a,b]$ such that $g\ne0$." Is this right?
The proof goes as follows in Ross's book:
"Otherwise, since $g$ is continuous, there is a nonempty interval $(c,d) \subseteq [a,b]$ and $\alpha >0$ satisfying $g(x) \geq \alpha/2$ for $x \in (c,d)$. Then
$$\int_{a}^{b} g \geq \int_{c}^{d} g \geq \frac{\alpha}{2}(d-c)$$ contradicting $\int_{a}^{b}g=0$.
The logic and structure makes sense to me. Other than my first question above, the other thing I cannot understand about this proof is how this is justified:
"Otherwise, since $g$ is continuous, there is a nonempty interval $(c,d) \subseteq [a,b]$ and $\alpha >0$ satisfying $g(x) \geq \alpha/2 $ for $x \in (c,d)$."
How does this follow? I was thinking of using the intermediate value theorem:
Since $g$ is continuous, there is some $\delta$ positive such that for $\epsilon=\frac{\alpha}{2}$ and $x \in (c,d)$: $$|g(x)-g(x_0)|< \frac{\alpha}{2}$$
but I'm having trouble obtaining $g(x)> \alpha /2$
Someone suggested using the reverse triangle inequality then:
$$g(x)> g(x_0) - \alpha/2 > \alpha/2$$
but this part doesn't seem to hold: $g(x_0) - \alpha/2 > \alpha/2$ because of the negative sign...