2

I've been studying measure Theory, using Bartle and Folland, mostly Bartle. Just this morning I've come in contact with the layer cake representation of a function while I was trying to understand what the theorem below meant."Cavalieri's Principle", apparently. So we got two measure spaces, a F-measurable non-negative function $f$ and the equality of the integrals. I can sorta understand what that means, open it and deduce it from Tonelli's theorem, but I don't see how that is Cavalieri's Principle in it's most famous form, that says "given two solids of same height, placed on a horizontal plane, if there's a family of planes parallel to the first one that intersects both solids with sections of same area, then the solids have the same volume". One could argue (as I have, though I am unsatisfied with this) that this theorem emullates the idea of Cavalieri's Principle that adding up the volume of very thin slices of one of the given solids in the end gives you it's volume. I'd like to know how we can relate this theorem to the initial statement, with the sections of same measure.

Mittens
  • 39,145
  • 1
    The right-handside of the equation above is Cavalieri's principle. The identity, as you pointed out, follows from Fubini-Tonelli's theorem. – Mittens Apr 19 '23 at 00:26

2 Answers2

3

The classical principle states that If $a < b$ are real numbers, and $S$ is a bounded measurable subset of $R^3$ which lies between the parallel planes $z = a$ and $z = b$, and for each $t \in [a,b]$ the plane section set $S_t=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2:(x,y,t)\in S\}$ corresponds to a measurable subset of $R^2$ under the vertical projection sending $(x, y, t)$ to $(x, y)$, then \begin{align}\operatorname{Vol}(S)=\int^b_a\operatorname{Area}(S_t)\,dt\tag{0}\label{zero}\end{align}

  • In terms of the Lebesgue measure $m_3$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$, the Lebesgue measure $m_2$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$ and the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^1$, Fubini-Tonelli's theorem implies $$\int_{\mathbb{R^3}} \mathbb{1}_S(x,y,t)\,dx\,dy\,dt=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\mathbb{1}_S((x,y,t)\,dx\,dy\Big)\,dt= \int_{\mathbb{R}} m_2(S_t)\,dt$$ This is the right-hand-side of \eqref{zero}. Also $$\int_{\mathbb{R^3}} \mathbb{1}_S(x,y,t)\,dx\,dy\,dt=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{1}_S((x,y,t)\,dt\Big)\,dx\,dy = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} m_1(S^{(x,y)})\,dxdy$$ where $S^{(x,y)}=\{t\in\mathbb{R}: (x,y,t)\in S\}$. Thus, $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} m_1(S^{(x,y)})\,dxdy=\int_{\mathbb{R}} m_2(S_t)\,dt$$ which is the identity stated in the theorem in the OP for the special case describe above.

  • A special case is the region in $\mathbb{R}^3$ given by $E=\{( x, y,t)\in\mathbb{R}^3: 0\leq t< f(x,y)\}$, with $f\geq0$. The area of the plane section $E_t$ that corresponds to a measurable subset of $R^2$ under the vertical projection sending $(x, y, t)$ to $(x, y)$ is $m_2(\{(x,y):f(x,y)>t\})$ and so the volume of $E$ is $$m_3(E)=\int^\infty_0 m_2(\{(x,y):f(x,y)>t\})\,dt$$ which is Cavalieri's principle as shown in Calculus. Another application of Fubini-tonelli's theorem yields \begin{align}m_3(E)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\int^\infty_0 m_1(E^{(x,y)})\,dx\,dy&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\big(\int^\infty_0\mathbb{1}_{(0,f(x,y)]}(t)\,dt\Big)\,dx\,dy\\ &=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\big(\int^{f(x,y)}_0\,dt\Big)\,dx\,dy=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f(x,y)\,dx\,dy \end{align} This is the identity in the theorem quoted in the OP.


In general, if $\nu$ is a $\sigma$-finite Borel measure on $[0,\infty)$, and $f$ is a measurable function on a set $\sigma$-finite measure space $(X,\mathscr{B},\mu)$ then Fubini's theorem implies that \begin{align} \mu\otimes\nu (\{(x,t): 0\leq t< f(x)\})&=\int_X\int^\infty_0\mathbb{1}(t\geq0: t < f(x))\,\nu(dt)\mu(dx)= \int_X \nu([0, f(x))\,\mu(dx)\\ &=\int^\infty_0\int_X\mathbb{1}(x\in X: f(x)>t)\,\mu(dx)\nu(dx)\\ &=\int^\infty_0\mu(x\in X: f(x)>t)\,\nu(dt) \end{align}

Mittens
  • 39,145
  • Ok, hold on. Got everything you said here, however, isn't what you described between "Another application of Fubini-tonelli's theorem yields..." and "This is the identity in the theorem quoted in the OP." Fubini's theorem? $E$ is the solid formed by the points between $f(x,y)$ and the $xy$ plane, so it's volume is the integral of $f$? – Gustavo De Souza Apr 19 '23 at 18:49
  • @GustavoDeSouza: there are approaches to integration theory that define the integral of a nonnegative measurable function $f$ on a measure space $(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$ as $\int_X f,d\mu:=\int^\infty_0\mu(|f|>t),dt$ (see for example Lieb and Loss, Analysis, GTM, AMS). The theory thus develop is equivalent to what one get from Daniell's integral or from the common integration theory that starts with simple functions and builds up by linearity. – Mittens Apr 19 '23 at 18:57
  • @GustavoDeSouza: In the particular case $E={(x,y,t)\in\mathbb{R}^3: 0\leq t<f(x,y)}$, indeed, the volume of $E$ is indeed the integral $\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f(x,t),dxdy$ (assuming $f\geq0$ of course) – Mittens Apr 19 '23 at 18:58
  • hmm ok. Again, I get what you're saying, I just haven't been able to relate to the original statement yet. In my head, I'm trying to make this fit into something like what Spivak does in Calculus in Manifolds, taking two sets, defining their sections (as you have) and then, assuming their sections always have the same measure, the same happens with the two original sets. I'm failing to recognise this in that theorem. – Gustavo De Souza Apr 19 '23 at 19:45
  • Ok, I see it, I think. Despite being very similar, it's not exactly Cavalieri's Principle. The theorem's name comes from the fact that given a non-negative measurable function $g$ that has sections of the same measure as those of $f$, then the "solids" (the intervals $[0,f(x)),[0,g(x)))$ have the same measure, as well. Is this it? – Gustavo De Souza Apr 20 '23 at 13:50
  • @GustavoDeSouza: correct. As I mentioned in a previous comment, the right-hand side of the identity in your posting is what is reminiscent of Cavalieri's theorem. And that allows to define $\int f,d\mu:=\int^\infty_0\mu(f>t),dt$ for $f\ge0$ and develop the theory of integration from this. That this is consistent with the other ways of developing Lebesgue integration is not complicated . Check the book of Loeb and Loss that mentioned earlier. – Mittens Apr 20 '23 at 14:13
  • I will! Thank you so much for your patience. You've been of great help! – Gustavo De Souza Apr 20 '23 at 14:15
1

For an elementary discussion of how this integral formula is related to the layer cake see this post: How do we go from the layer cake representation a function to the intuition of Lebesgue as horizontal rectangles?

MathFont
  • 4,837