Re: lebesgue

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:33:31 -0800 (PST), v_aylin2000@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

On Feb 22, 4:28 am, Robert Israel <isr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:28 pm, v_aylin2...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:





On 21 ?ubat, 14:27, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article
<432dbdab-0a93-4a80-9764-b47235105...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 v_aylin2...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 21 ?ubat, 13:06, Robert Israel
<isr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
v_aylin2...@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
f is a nonnegative and integrable over a measurable set E. Then
epsilon greater than 0 and delta greater than 0 s.t. over a measurable
set A subset of E with
lamda(A)<delta, we have integral_A f d lambda < epsilon

it means A has measure zero.If A has measure zero we can say lambdaA=0
then,
lambdaA=0 and f is measurable integral_R f X_A dlambda=0

we know that if A subset of E
integral_A f dlambda= integral_R X_A f dlambda<=integral_R X_E
dlambda=
integral_E f dlambda

from this
0<= integral_R X_E dlambda=integral_E f dlambda

What should I do now?

That depends on what you're trying to do, which is not at all clear.
What exactly is the problem you're trying to solve?  Please be careful
to include the quantifiers (for all) and (there exists), and in the correct
order: they are very important.
--
Robert Israel              isr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Mathematics        http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia            Vancouver, BC, Canada- Al?nt?y?
gizle -

- Al?nt?y? göster -

I'm trying to show that

?f dlambda<epsilon
A

State the problem precisely.- Al?nt?y? gizle -

- Al?nt?y? göster -

f is a nonnegative and integrable over a measurable set E. Then ?>0
and ?>0 s.t. over a measurable
set A subset of E with ?(A)<?, show that ?fd?<?
                                         A

You didn't take my advice, nor did you take Wade's.  There may
be a language barrier here, but I suspect it shows a basic lack
of understanding of the mathematics.

 Robert Israel              isr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Department of Mathematics        http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
 University of British Columbia            Vancouver, BC, Canada- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

sorry but i wrote the question clearly but i will try to write it
again.

f be a nonnegative measurable function which is integrable over a
measuarble
set E.Then given ?>0 and ?>0 such that for every measurable set A
subset of E with ?(A)<?, we have
?fd?<?

I haven't commented on any of this since Robert and Wade were
doing just fine without me. The OP sent me an email asking me
to look at the thread and comment. So:

You're not making any sense at all. You are not _stating_ the
problem correctly - the little words you're omitting are important.

A

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: lebesgue
    ... epsilon greater than 0 and delta greater than 0 s.t. over a measurable ... integral_E f dlambda ... but I suspect it shows a basic lack ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: lebesgue
    ... epsilon greater than 0 and delta greater than 0 s.t. over a measurable ... integral_E f dlambda ... of understanding of the mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: lebesgue
    ... epsilon greater than 0 and delta greater than 0 s.t. over a measurable ... integral_E f dlambda ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: lebesgue
    ... epsilon greater than 0 and delta greater than 0 s.t. over a measurable ... integral_E f dlambda ... but I suspect it shows a basic lack ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Refute an alleged proof of the Riemann Hypothesis was Re: Refute a proof of the Riemann Hypothe
    ... continuity. ... I used the letter epsilon where the textbooks conventionally use ... delta, and delta where they use epsilon. ... since so many students omit them so often. ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast