1

Prove that if $f:[0,1]\times[0,1]:\to\Bbb R$ is Riemann integrable, than $f_x:y\mapsto f(x,y)$ is integrable for almost all $x\in[0,1].$

I first heard of this statement in the comment section here and I later found the same task in the old materials on the web page, so I guess the apparatus shouldn't be as complex as it first seemed. I hope the definition of the Lebesgue measure (zero) on Wikipedia is equivalent to the definition in our script:

A set $A\subseteq\Bbb R^2$ is said to be of measure $0$ if for every $\varepsilon>0$ it can be covered by at most countably many open rectangles of the overal area less than $\varepsilon.$

I think I should use the Lebesgue theorem:

A bounded function $f:[a,b]\times[c,d]\to\Bbb R$ is Riemann integrable if and only if its set of discontinuities is of measure zero.

If $f:[0,1]\times[0,1]\to\Bbb R^2$ is continuous at $(x_0,y_0)\in[0,1]\times[0,1],$ then, $$\lim_{(x,y)\to(x_0,y_0)}f(x,y)=f(x_0,y_0)\tag 1$$ In particular, the same holds for the restriction: $$\lim_{(x_0,y)\to(x_0,y_0)}f(x_0,y)=f(x_0,y_0).\tag 2$$

If $(2)$ doesn't hold, neither does $(1)$. So, I think the set of discontinuities $D_{f_{x_0}}$ of the function $f_{x_0}:y\mapsto f(x_0,y)$ is just a projection on the $y$ axis of a subset of the set $D_f$ of all discontinuities of the function $f,$ so, if $D_{f_{x_0}}$ were of non-zero measure, that is, if $\pi_y^{-1}(D_{f_{x_0}})$ couldn't be covered by at most countably many rectangles of an arbitrarily small overall area, neither could be $D_f$.

I'm not sure if my reasoning is correct. How can we prove this statement?

PinkyWay
  • 4,565
  • 1
    Yes, assuming you can use Lebesgue's theorem, then you are more or less correct. If $f$ is real-valued and R.I. on $[0,1]\times [0,1]$, then it is bounded and Lebesgue a.e. continuous on that square and, in particular, on any subset of that square. – JWP_HTX Mar 18 '22 at 19:46
  • @JWP_HTX, thanks for the feedback! I'm now wondering, if I hypothetically couldn't use Lebesgue's theorem, is there any other way of proving this? – PinkyWay Mar 18 '22 at 22:18
  • 1
    Yes, any equivalent definition of R.I. will eventually get the job done – JWP_HTX Mar 19 '22 at 13:48
  • Despite the posted answer, the real question still remains of how to prove directly that when the two-dimensional Lebesgue measure of the set of discontinuities for $f$ is zero, then for almost every $x$, the one-dimensional Lebesgue measure of the set of discontinuities of $y \mapsto f(x,y)$ is zero. – RRL Mar 21 '22 at 20:11
  • @RRL, if so, I'll think more, read the answer you linked and gladly accept other answers. For now, I really wanted to show my gratitude to Udi by awarding his answer which did illuminate me quite a bit. – PinkyWay Mar 21 '22 at 20:14
  • @RRL, I went through your linked answer this morning. I think it helped a bit more, too. Thank you! – PinkyWay Mar 22 '22 at 06:06

1 Answers1

1

Remark: I think there is a little confusion about Lebesgue's theorem. The thorem states that if $f:P\to\mathbb{R}$ for $P\subset\mathbb{R}$ (in our case it is even sufficient to assume that $P$ is a brick), then $f$ is riemann integrable if and only if the set of discontinuous points of $f$ can be covered with at most countable union of bricks who's sum of volumes (volume in $\mathbb{R}^n$) is small as we want.

Notice that in our case $f$ has a domain that contained in $\mathbb{R}^2$, and $f_x$ has a domain that contained in $\mathbb{R}$.

In your approach you claimed that if $E$ is a set in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with measure zero (with respect to $\mathbb{R}^2$), then the set $$ E_y=\left\{y\in\mathbb{R}\;\middle|\;\;\exists x\in\mathbb{R}:\;(x,y)\in E\right\} $$ (The projection of $E$ on the $y$ axis), is of measure zero (with respect to $\mathbb{R}$). This claim is false as i will demonstrate with a counter example. The fact that this claim is false is counter intuitive at first, but if we will think about it, we could take a line, which has measure zero in the plane, but not in $\mathbb{R}$, and that is exactly what i will do.


counter example: Let's define $E=\left\{(0,y)\,\,\middle|\;\;y\in[0,1]\right\}$, then $E$ is contained in $[0,0]\times[0,1]$, hence of measure zero (with respect to $\mathbb{R}^2$). On the contrary, $$ E_y=\left\{y\in\mathbb{R}\;\middle|\;\;\exists x\in\mathbb{R}:\;(x,y)\in E\right\}=[0,1] $$
Hence $E_y$ is not of measure zero (with respect to $\mathbb{R}$)


The statement that you want to proof is a consequence of Fubini's theorem, not the theorem it self but part of it's proof that i will present here.


Fubini's theorem: If the integral $\underset{P\times Q}{\int\int}f(x,y)dxdy$ exists and equals to $I$, then both of integrals $\underset{P}{\int}dx\underset{Q}{\int}f(x,y)dy,\;\underset{Q}{\int}dy\underset{P}{\int}f(x,y)dx$ exists, and their value is $I$, for $P\subset\mathbb{R}^n,\;Q\subset\mathbb{R}^m$ Bricks.


Remark: If we will write $F(x)=\int_Qf(x,y)dy,\;G(y)=\int _Pf(x,y)dx$ then we need to prove that $F,G$ are reimann integrable on $P,Q$ respectively. the problem is that $F,G$ might not be define in some points. For example you can consider the function $$ f(x,y)=\begin{cases} 1, & x=0,y\in\mathbb{Q}\\ 0, & x=0,y\notin\mathbb{Q}\\ -1, & \text{else} \end{cases} $$ on the square $[0,1]^2$. the set of discontinuous points of $f$ in $[0,1]^2$ is $\left\{(0,y)\middle|\;y\in[0,1]\right\}$, this set is of measure zero (with respect to $\mathbb{R}^2)$, so by Lebesgue's theorem the function $f$ is riemann integrable on $[0,1]^2$, but notice that the function $f(0,y):[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$ uphold $$ f(0,y)=\begin{cases} 1, & y\in\mathbb{Q}\\ 0, & y\notin\mathbb{Q} \end{cases} $$ Which is the dirichlete function, so $f(0,y)$ is not integrable, and if we will use our notation as before, $F(0)$ is not defined. To fix this problem we will oberve that because $f$ is riemann integrable in $P\times Q$ than it is bounded in $P\times Q$ , so $f(x^0,y)$ is bounded in $Q$ for all $x^0\in P$, hence the upper and lower integrals, $\overline{\int}_{Q}f(x^0,y)dy,\;\underline{\intop}_{Q}f(x^0,y)dy$ are defined for all $x^0\in P$. So for $x^0\in P$ such that $\overline{\intop}_{Q}f(x,y)dy\neq\underline{\intop}_Qf(x,y)dy$ we will choose a value for $F(x^0)$ in the interval

$$ \left[ \underline{\intop}_Qf(x,y)dy,\overline{\intop}_Qf(x,y)dy\right] $$

In the course of the proof we will see that the set

$$ \left\{x\in P\;\;\middle|\;\;\overline{\intop}_Qf(x,y)dy\neq\underline{\intop}_Qf(x,y)dy\right\} $$ is of measure zero with respect to $\mathbb{R}^n$ (which is what you want to prove), so it won't matter what are the values of $F$ in this set.


Proof of Fubini's theorem: Choose partitions $\Pi_P$ of $P$ and $\Pi_Q$ of $Q$, and denote the corresponding partition of $P\times Q$ by $\Pi=\Pi_P\times \Pi_B$. If $S$ is a brick from $\Pi$ then $S=P_i\times Q_j$ (for $P_i\in\Pi_P,\;Q_j\in\Pi_Q$ bricks), and $v_{n+m}(S)=v_n(P_i)\cdot v_m(Q_j)$, where $v_k$ is the volume of a brick in dimension $k$. Now, if we will denote $L(f,\Pi),\;U(f,\Pi)$ as the upper and lower darboux sum, and $m_F(P_i)=\underset{x\in P_i}{\inf}F(x),\;M_F(P_i)=\underset{x\in P_i}{\sup}F(x)$ then the following inequality upholds:

$$ \begin{align} L(f,\Pi) & =\sum_{i,j}\left(\underset{P_i\times Q_j}{\inf} f\right)v_n(P_i)v_m(Q_j) \\\\ & =\sum_i\left(\sum_j\underset{x\in P_i,y\in Q_j}{\inf}f(x,y)v_m(Q_j)\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\inf}\left(\sum_j\underset{y\in Q_j}{\inf}f(x,y)v_m(Q_j)\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\inf}\left(\underline{\int}_Qf(x,y)dy\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i m_F(P_i) v_n(P_i)\leq\sum_i M_F(P_i) v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\sup}\left(\overline{\int}_Qf(x,y)dy\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\sup}\left(\sum_j\underset{y\in Q_j}{\sup}f(x,y)v_m(Q_j)\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i\left(\sum_j\underset{x\in P_i,y\in Q_j}{\sup}f(x,y)v_m(Q_j)\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & =\sum_{i,j}\left(\underset{P_i\times Q_j}{\sup} f\right)v_n(P_i)v_m(Q_j)=U(f,\Pi) \end{align} $$

Thus $$ L(f,\Pi)\leq\sum_im_F(P_i)v_n(P_i)\leq\sum_iM_F(P_i)v_n(P_i)\leq U(f,\Pi) $$ Hence, $F$ is riemann integrable, and $$ \int_P Fdx=\int\int_{P\times Q} f(x,y)dxdy $$ And we are done (with the proof of Fubini's theorem).


Now we will prove your claim in the next corollary:

corollary: If $f$ is riemann integrable on $P\times Q$, then the set $$ \left\{x\in P\;\;\middle|\;\;\overline{\intop}_Qf(x,y)dy\neq\underline{\intop}_Qf(x,y)dy\right\} $$ is of measure zero with respect to $\mathbb{R}^n$.


Proof of the corollary: Notice that from the proof of Fubini's theorem we can conclude that

$$ \begin{align} L(f,\Pi) & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\inf}\left(\underline{\int}_Q f(x,y)dy\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\inf}\left(\overline{\int}_Qf(x,y)dy\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\sup}\left(\overline{\int}_Qf(x,y)dy\right)v_n(P_i)\leq U(f,\Pi) \end{align} $$

And

$$ \begin{align} L(f,\Pi) & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\inf}\left(\underline{\int}_Q f(x,y)dy\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\sup}\left(\underline{\int}_Q f(x,y)dy\right)v_n(P_i)\\\\ & \leq\sum_i\underset{x\in P_i}{\sup}\left(\overline{\int}_Qf(x,y)dy\right)v_n(P_i)\leq U(f,\Pi) \end{align} $$

Hence, $\underline{\int}_Q f(x,y)dy,\;\overline{\int}_Qf(x,y)dy$ are riemann integrable over $P$ and

$$ \int_P\underline{\int}_Q f(x,y)dydx=\int\int_{P\times Q}f(x,y)dydx=\int_P\overline{\int}_Q f(x,y)dydx $$ Now, observe the function

$$ x\mapsto \overline{\int}_Q f(x,y)dy-\underline{\int}_Q f(x,y)dy $$

This function is riemann integrable on $P$ (as the difference of two integrable functions), non-negative, and has zero integral over P. If this function had a point $x^0\in P$ such that it was positive and continuous, we would conclude that it's integral was positive, so all the points that this function don't vanish on them are discontinuous points. Beause this function is integrable, from Lebesgue's theorem it follows that the set of discontinuous points is of measure zero, hence the set

$$ \left\{x\in P\;\;\middle|\;\;\overline{\intop}_Qf(x,y)dy\neq\underline{\intop}_Qf(x,y)dy\right\} $$ is of measure zero with respect to $\mathbb{R}^n$.

Udi Fogiel
  • 1,624
  • Hi @Winter, you have wrote in your post "So, I think the set of discontinuities $D_{f_{x_0}}$...is just a projection on the $y$ axis of a subset of the set $D_f$ " "so, if $D_{f_{x_0}}$ were of non-zero measure...neither could be $D_f$". Which is an equivalent statement to the claim that you are referring. But it might be that i misunderstood your intentions. – Udi Fogiel Mar 21 '22 at 04:57
  • Sorry, it's 5 am, I just saw at the clock. I'll reread your post again. That's why I deleted my comment. – PinkyWay Mar 21 '22 at 05:02
  • I forgot to write $\color{red}{\pi^{-1}(}D_{f_{x_0}}\color{red}{)},$ but I now see it might be a contrapositive of the false statement. – PinkyWay Mar 21 '22 at 05:04
  • 1
    Now that you have mentioned that, I have never seen a function called $\pi$ or $\pi^{-1}$ in this context. What is the definition of this function? – Udi Fogiel Mar 21 '22 at 05:07
  • I have edited my answer to add spaces between the some rows so it would be easier to read – Udi Fogiel Mar 21 '22 at 05:39
  • Did you use $$\begin{aligned}\inf_{x\in P_i, y\in Q_j} f(x,y)&\le\inf_{y\in Q_j}f(x,y),\forall x\in P_i,\forall i\\implies\inf_{x\in P_i,y\in Q_j}f(x,y)&\le\inf_{x\in P_i}\inf_{y\in Q_j}f(x,y),\forall i\end{aligned}$$ in the proof of Fubini's theorem?

    And $$F(x)\in\left[\underline{\int }Qf(x,y)dy,\overline{\int}_Qf(x,y)dy\right]\\implies\inf{x\in P_i}\underline{\int}Qf(x,y)dy\le m_F(P_i)\le M_F(P_i)\le\sup{x\in P_i}\overline{\int}_Q f(x,y)dy,$$ right? In Fubini, as stated in our script, there is an assumption one of the functions is integrable, that is basically redundant, isn't it?

    – PinkyWay Mar 21 '22 at 07:37
  • I would also like to apologize for accusing you of not reading my post when I haven't done the same myself. – PinkyWay Mar 21 '22 at 07:41
  • @Winter Yes, you are correct about the reasoning fro the inequalities i have used in my proof, also i have used the fact that $\inf A + \inf B\leq \inf (A+B)$ and all the corresponding inequalities for the $\sup$. I don't want to edit the answer after you have accepted it, because i think it might make someone close it. About the assumption that you have mentioned, i did not understand which function i assumed to be integrable besides $f$? can you elaborate more? – Udi Fogiel Mar 21 '22 at 15:04
  • In one line, I wrote $D_{f_{x_0}}$ and in the other, $\pi_y^{-1}(D_{f_{x_0}}).$ I claimed the preimage under the projection $\pi_y:(x,y)\mapsto y$ of the set of dicontinuities of the function $f_{x_0}$ would be of measure zero if $f_{x_0}$ weren't integrable, but only today have I noticed that would be a contrapositive of what you thought I wrote. – PinkyWay Mar 21 '22 at 15:09
  • @Winter About that comment: "there is an assumption one of the functions is integrable, that is basically redundant, isn't it?", which function and why the assumption is redundant? – Udi Fogiel Mar 21 '22 at 15:13
  • Fubini's theorem in our script: Let $f:A=[a,b]\times[c,d]\to\Bbb R$ be Riemann integrable . Suppose the function from $[c,d]$ defined by $y\mapsto f(x,y)$ is integrable on $[c,d]$ for every (fixed) $x\in[a,b].$ Then the function $F(x)=\int\limits_c^df(x,y)dy$ is integrable on $[a,b]$ and $$\int_Af=\int_a^bF(x)dx=\int_a^b\int_c^d f(x,y)dydx$$ – PinkyWay Mar 21 '22 at 16:41
  • 1
    @Winter: There is some suggestion of a circular argument here. It could be avoided by streamlining the answer (much is unnecessary) and simply focusing on the version of Fubini's theorem that is relevant for the Riemann integral. That is $f$ is Riemann integrable on the product of rectangles $X \times Y$, then since $f$ is bounded the upper and lower Darboux integrals (with respect to $y$ exist for each $x \in X$ and $$\int_{X \times Y} f = \int_X \left(\underline{\int}_Y f(x,y) , dy\right) dx = \int_X \left(\overline{\int}_Y f(x,y) , dy\right) , dx $$. – RRL Mar 21 '22 at 20:02
  • 1
    This can be proved in a few lines as in Proof of (1). From that the argument above is correct in concluding that $y \mapsto f(x,y)$ is Riemann integrable for almost every $x$. – RRL Mar 21 '22 at 20:06
  • 1
    Hi @RRL , That's what i have proved in this post. Because the prove of this statement almost covers all whats needed for Fubini's theorem, I wanted to show the proof for Fubini's theorem as well. Are you sure my arguments are circular? Can you point out to a specific place? (i know that my proof is not a direct proof of the statement Winter wanted, but i think it's pedagogical more correct to present the proof this way). – Udi Fogiel Mar 21 '22 at 20:31
  • 1
    I did not say your arguments are circular. Perhaps just too much is presented and the OP was getting this impression. Why not be concise and simply state the result for the Riemann integrals (not Lebesgue integrals) that involve only the upper and lower integrals with respect to $y$. I understood what you were doing but the OP wanted some clarification. In the end it was understood and accepted. – RRL Mar 21 '22 at 20:50