The Integrable Function Whose Integral Vanishes on Every Interval
Suppose is locally integrable (i.e., integrable on every bounded interval), and satisfies
Must almost everywhere?
Now suppose instead we only know that
with locally integrable on .
Does the same conclusion hold?
Finally: what if is merely assumed to be in but the vanishing condition is changed to
Prove the conclusion in each case, or give a counterexample.
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 a.e. In each case, the tool is the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem: the integral function is differentiable a.e. with . If , then a.e., so a.e. The measurable-set version is the strongest and follows from choosing and separately.
Formal Proof / Solution
Case 1: for all
Define . The hypothesis (with ) gives for all , and similarly for . So .
By the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem, for locally integrable ,
Since , we get a.e.
Case 2: for all
This is identical to Case 1 on : set , apply the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem to get a.e. on .
Remark: One might worry that "only knowing vanishes at every , not at every " is weaker — but it is not, since anyway.
Case 3: for every measurable
This is the strongest condition. Let:
Both sets are measurable (since is measurable). Apply the hypothesis to :
But on , we have , so the integrand is strictly positive on a set of positive measure — unless . Therefore .
Similarly, applying the hypothesis to :
and since on , we get .
Therefore a.e. on .
Summary Table
| Condition | Conclusion | |---|---| | for all | a.e. (Lebesgue Diff. Thm) | | for all | a.e. (same) | | for all meas. | 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 has a sign.