🧮 Brain Teaser

The Integrable Function Whose Integral Vanishes on Every Interval

Suppose f:R→Rf: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is locally integrable (i.e., integrable on every bounded interval), and satisfies

∫abf(x) dx=0for every a<b.\int_a^b f(x)\, dx = 0 \quad \text{for every } a < b.

Must f=0f = 0 almost everywhere?

Now suppose instead we only know that

∫0xf(t) dt=0for every x≥0,\int_0^x f(t)\, dt = 0 \quad \text{for every } x \geq 0,

with ff locally integrable on [0,∞)[0,\infty).

Does the same conclusion hold?

Finally: what if ff is merely assumed to be in Lloc1L^1_{\text{loc}} but the vanishing condition is changed to

∫Ef dμ=0for every measurable set E⊆[0,1]?\int_E f\, d\mu = 0 \quad \text{for every measurable set } E \subseteq [0,1]?

Prove the conclusion in each case, or give a counterexample.

Lebesgue differentiation theoremmeasure theorylocally integrablevanishing integrals

Answer: The Integrable Function Whose Integral Vanishes on Every Interval

Key Idea / Intuition

The key insight is that integrals over all intervals (or all measurable sets) is an extremely rigid condition — it forces f=0f = 0 a.e. In each case, the tool is the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem: the integral function F(x)=∫0xf(t) dtF(x) = \int_0^x f(t)\,dt is differentiable a.e. with F′(x)=f(x)F'(x) = f(x). If F≡0F \equiv 0, then F′=0F' = 0 a.e., so f=0f = 0 a.e. The measurable-set version is the strongest and follows from choosing E={f>0}E = \{f > 0\} and E={f<0}E = \{f < 0\} separately.


Formal Proof / Solution

Case 1: ∫abf(x) dx=0\int_a^b f(x)\,dx = 0 for all a<ba < b

Define F(x)=∫0xf(t) dtF(x) = \int_0^x f(t)\,dt. The hypothesis (with a=0,b=xa = 0, b = x) gives F(x)=0F(x) = 0 for all x≥0x \geq 0, and similarly for x<0x < 0. So F≡0F \equiv 0.

By the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem, for locally integrable ff,

f(x)=F′(x)for a.e. x.f(x) = F'(x) \quad \text{for a.e. } x.

Since F≡0F \equiv 0, we get f=0f = 0 a.e. ✓\checkmark


Case 2: ∫0xf(t) dt=0\int_0^x f(t)\,dt = 0 for all x≥0x \geq 0

This is identical to Case 1 on [0,∞)[0, \infty): set F(x)=∫0xf(t) dt≡0F(x) = \int_0^x f(t)\,dt \equiv 0, apply the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem to get f=0f = 0 a.e. on [0,∞)[0,\infty). ✓\checkmark

Remark: One might worry that "only knowing FF vanishes at every xx, not at every a<ba < b" is weaker — but it is not, since ∫abf=F(b)−F(a)=0−0=0\int_a^b f = F(b) - F(a) = 0 - 0 = 0 anyway.


Case 3: ∫Ef dμ=0\int_E f\,d\mu = 0 for every measurable E⊆[0,1]E \subseteq [0,1]

This is the strongest condition. Let:

E+={x∈[0,1]:f(x)>0},E−={x∈[0,1]:f(x)<0}.E^+ = \{x \in [0,1] : f(x) > 0\}, \quad E^- = \{x \in [0,1] : f(x) < 0\}.

Both sets are measurable (since ff is measurable). Apply the hypothesis to E=E+E = E^+:

0=∫E+f dμ.0 = \int_{E^+} f\,d\mu.

But on E+E^+, we have f>0f > 0, so the integrand is strictly positive on a set of positive measure — unless μ(E+)=0\mu(E^+) = 0. Therefore μ(E+)=0\mu(E^+) = 0.

Similarly, applying the hypothesis to E=E−E = E^-:

0=∫E−f dμ,0 = \int_{E^-} f\,d\mu,

and since f<0f < 0 on E−E^-, we get μ(E−)=0\mu(E^-) = 0.

Therefore f=0f = 0 a.e. on [0,1][0,1]. ✓\checkmark


Summary Table

| Condition | Conclusion | |---|---| | ∫abf=0\int_a^b f = 0 for all a<ba < b | f=0f = 0 a.e. (Lebesgue Diff. Thm) | | ∫0xf=0\int_0^x f = 0 for all xx | f=0f = 0 a.e. (same) | | ∫Ef=0\int_E f = 0 for all meas. EE | f=0f = 0 a.e. (direct sign argument) |

The three cases are progressively "different looking" but all force the same conclusion. The cleanest proof is Case 3's direct argument: just plug in the set where ff has a sign.

Type: analysisEdit on GitHub ↗