2

I have a piecewise continuous function $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ and $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$ \int_0^\infty e^{\varepsilon t}f(t) dt < \infty $$ holds.

Can I somehow imply absolute integrability of $f$, or that $f$ goes to $0$ (or that for all $\varepsilon_2>0$ the set $A:=\{x\in\mathbb{R}:|f(x)|>\varepsilon_2\}$ has zero measure)? Or is it possible, that the function $f$ oscillates infinitely? (my guess would be, that it should be absolute integrable, but I do not have an idea how to show it)

I got the existence of the integral, because I have, that the Laplace transform of $f$ is defined and analytical on $\mathbb{C}_{Re\geq -\varepsilon}$ for some $\varepsilon > 0$.

Bernard
  • 175,478
Lukas
  • 55
  • For the integral to exist in a Lebesgue sense you must have that $t \mapsto e^{\epsilon t} |f(t)|$ is integrable, hence $|f|$ is. – copper.hat Dec 20 '19 at 15:11
  • for the integral to exist in a Lebesgue sense it has to converge absolutely too? - sorry, i am not too deep into measure theory – Lukas Dec 21 '19 at 11:28
  • 1
    Yes. To be integrable, a function must be measurable and $\int |f|$ must be finite. – copper.hat Dec 21 '19 at 14:51
  • We are dealing here with a piecewise continuous function so that $\int_0^R e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt$ makes sense and coincides in the Lebesgue and Riemann sense. I have not yet been through the discussion about "Lebesgue improper integrals", but taking the limit $R\to \infty$ does make sense and it is obviously the meaning of the first integral. (Riemann integrals are first define on compact segments. For an infinite one, one has to take the limit. For Lebesgue, one can directly define $\int_{[0,\infty[}$ but not in our case, as...) – Noix07 Dec 23 '19 at 19:11
  • Lebesgue integral is first defined the "positive part" of a function and as the answer shows, we have $\int_{[0,+\infty[} f_+ = +\infty$ then we substract the "negative part" $\int_{[0,+\infty[} f_- = +\infty$. Here we thus have an undetermined quantity $+\infty - \infty$. So allowing improper Lebesgue integrals we may encounter situations where $\lim_{b\to c} \int_{[a,b]} f(x) dx \neq \int_{[a,c]} f(x) dx$ – Noix07 Dec 23 '19 at 19:17
  • Now that I've read through the discussion about improper integral, I can definitely say that the first integral means $\lim_{R\to \infty} \int_0^R e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt$ regardless whether it is a Riemann or Lebesgue integral. Indeed for $R$ finite we are integrating a piecewise function (and approximating it with step functions or simple functions will change nothing). Then we take the limit $R\to \infty$. In their discussion, this is choosing the very specific family $\big( [0,R]\big){R>0}$ of subset which has "limit" $\mathbb{R}:=\bigcup{R} [0,R]$. This is "non canonical" but .....!! – Noix07 Dec 23 '19 at 21:37

1 Answers1

2

I have left the trials and errors in a second part but the answer is that $f$ is not necessarily (absolutely) integrable, nor does it have to converge to $0$ at $+\infty$:

Based on the function you gave in comment: let us consider the function $f(t):=\sin(e^{2\epsilon t})$ which is not integrable as it does not even converge to $0$. Nevertheless, one checks by integration by parts that the integral with the exponential converges $$\begin{aligned} \int_0^{+\infty} e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt &= \int_0^{+\infty} e^{-\epsilon t} \frac{d}{dt} \left(-\frac{\cos (e^{2\epsilon t})}{2\epsilon}\right) dt \\ &=\left[ -e^{-\epsilon t} \frac{\cos (e^{2\epsilon t})}{2\epsilon}\right]^{+\infty}_0 - \int_0^{+\infty} e^{-\epsilon t} \frac{\cos (e^{2\epsilon t})}{2} dt \end{aligned}$$ Both term are finite, the second being absolutely convergent (dominate $\cos$ by $1$).


  • The usual construction of a continuous function with finite integral but which does not converge to $0$ at infinity also works: sum bump functions with constant height, but sufficiently fast decreasing width, moving to the right. Let us take $$b:\left\lbrace \begin{aligned} \ [-1,1] &\longrightarrow \mathbb{R},\\ x &\longmapsto \begin{cases} 1+x & \text{if} x\leq 0\\ 1-x & \text{otherwise}\end{cases} \end{aligned}\right.$$ as the "bump" function (although, the convention is usually that $b\in \mathcal{C}^{\infty}_c$, but it's just for simplicity, it does not change anything). Define $b_n(x)= b\big(n^2e^{n\epsilon}(x-n)\big)$ which is a "bump" centered at $n+1$, with height $1$. When multiplied by $e^{\epsilon x}$ and integrated: $$ \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{\epsilon x} b_n(x) dx \leq \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{(n+1)\epsilon } b(y) \frac{dy}{n^2e^{n\epsilon}} = \frac{e^{\epsilon}}{n^2} $$ which is the general term of a convergent series.

  • The following is actually excluded by the assumption $f$ piecewise continuous but if $f$ is not supposed to be continuous at $0$ (or at a "junction" between the "pieces" where $f$ is continuous) then $\int_0^{M} \frac{sin(1/x)}{x}\, dx< \infty $ (Wolfram Alpha computation), but I suspect the integrand not to be integrable (still to be checked).

  • An attempt that was doomed to fail: For $t$ large enough, $f$ will be continuous (normally a function is piecewise continuous if there are finitely many pieces, and it is continuous up to the boundary of each) and by definition $\displaystyle \int_M^{+\infty}e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt := \lim_{R\to\infty} \int_M^{R}e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt$. Let us now use the following "trick": consider the r.h.s. integral as a function of $R$, it has a limit at $+\infty$ so for any increasing sequence $(R_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}},\ \left(\int_M^{R_n}e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt\right)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is Cauchy, or directly, without introducing a sequence $(R_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ $$\forall \varepsilon > 0,\ \exists R_0 > 0,\ \forall\ R_1, R_2 > R_0, \ \left\lvert \int_M^{R_2} e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt - \int_M^{R_1}e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt\right\rvert = \left\lvert \int_{R_1}^{R_2}e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt \right\rvert < \varepsilon \tag{A}\label{A}$$ (assuming without lost of generality that $R_1 < R_2$). Let us now consider the open subset $f^{-1}\big(]-\infty,0[\big) \cap\ ]R_0,+\infty[ $: as an open subset of $\mathbb{R}$ it is at most a countable union of disjoint intervals, so that $]R_0,+\infty[$ is cut into a countable number of intervals, closed ones on which $f\geq 0$ and open ones on which $f<0$. (subtility on the boundary $]R_0,...$, closed or open in the subset topology.) On each of these pieces $[R_n,R_{n+1}]$ (closed or open) where $f$ has a constant sign, one has $$ e^{\epsilon R_n} \left\lvert \int_{R_n}^{R_{n+1}} f(t) dt \right\rvert \leq \left\lvert \int_{R_n}^{R_{n+1}}e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt \right\rvert < \varepsilon \quad \Longrightarrow\quad \left\lvert \int_{R_n}^{R_{n+1}} f(t) dt \right\rvert < \varepsilon e^{-\epsilon R_n} \tag{B}\label{B}$$ We know that $\displaystyle \int_{R_0}^{+\infty}e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt = \pm \sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} (-1)^n \left\lvert \int_{R_n}^{R_{n+1}}e^{\epsilon t} f(t) dt \right\rvert$ converges and we want to show that $\displaystyle \int_{R_0}^{+\infty} \lvert f(t) \rvert dt = \sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \left\lvert\int_{R_n}^{R_{n+1}} f(t) dt \right\rvert$ converges. After a failed attempt with "summation by parts" a.k.a. Abel transformation (e.g. Principles of real Analysis (1976), W. Rudin, Thm 3.42 p.70), I think we should examine $\sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} e^{-\epsilon R_n}$.

  • In your question, you probably want to intersect what you defined as $A$ by something like $[R,+\infty[$ and look at the behavior when $R\to\infty$;

  • One should check if there are theorems about Laplace transform analogous to the Paley-Wiener one for Fourier transform as you talked about analyticity.)
Noix07
  • 3,499
  • So your edit (third point) says it is possible to have a continuous integrand, which does not converge, but has a finite integral? e.g. the function $e^{-\varepsilon t}sin(e^t)$ forexample would be such a function, which is bounded by 1, but increasingly oscillating as $t$ goes to infinity.

    Can I conclude, that you think that my assumptions do not imply absolute integrability, or that $f$ converges to $0$?

    – Lukas Dec 20 '19 at 22:13
  • Interesting function, but it converges to $0$ as its "amplitude" is exponentially decreasing. Let me edit my answer to add more details about that, all the more so that I made a big mistake... – Noix07 Dec 21 '19 at 16:50