Proof of $int_{mathbb{R}^d} f(x) dx = prod_{i = 1}^{d} int_{mathbb{R}} phi_i(x_i) dx_i$, where $f :=...











up vote
0
down vote

favorite













Let $phi_1, ldots phi_d: mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be continuos and have compact support.
Show that for
$$
f := bigotimes_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i: mathbb{R}^d to mathbb{R},
(x_1, ldots, x_d) mapsto prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i)
$$

we have
$$
int_{mathbb{R}^d} f(x) dx = prod_{i = 1}^{d} int_{mathbb{R}} phi_i(x_i) dx_i
$$




Proof
Since $f$ is continuous and has a compact support as well, we get
begin{align*}
int_{mathbb{R}^d} f(x) dx
& = int_{text{supp}(f)} prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx
overset{(ast)}{=} int_{text{supp}(phi_d)} left( ldots left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx_1 right) ldots right) d x_d \
& overset{(star)}{=} left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} phi_1(x_1) dx_1 right) left( int_{text{supp}(phi_d)} left( ldots left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} prod_{i = 2}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx_2 right) ldots right) d x_d right) \
& = ldots
= prod_{i = 1}^{d} int_{mathbb{R}} phi_i(x_i) dx_i
end{align*}



My Question
I don't understand the steps $(ast)$ and especially $(star)$ . Can we just ''pull out'' a one-dimensional integral since it's just a constant?



The proof is from Otto Forster: Analyis 3 (in German) on page 3.
This was a homework assignment and the corrector gave full marks to this answer but suggested using induction instead of the $ldots$-step.
Could someone please show that induction in light of the question above?



Please bear in mind that this is from the very beginning of real analysis III and we have not learned measure theory yet.










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite













    Let $phi_1, ldots phi_d: mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be continuos and have compact support.
    Show that for
    $$
    f := bigotimes_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i: mathbb{R}^d to mathbb{R},
    (x_1, ldots, x_d) mapsto prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i)
    $$

    we have
    $$
    int_{mathbb{R}^d} f(x) dx = prod_{i = 1}^{d} int_{mathbb{R}} phi_i(x_i) dx_i
    $$




    Proof
    Since $f$ is continuous and has a compact support as well, we get
    begin{align*}
    int_{mathbb{R}^d} f(x) dx
    & = int_{text{supp}(f)} prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx
    overset{(ast)}{=} int_{text{supp}(phi_d)} left( ldots left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx_1 right) ldots right) d x_d \
    & overset{(star)}{=} left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} phi_1(x_1) dx_1 right) left( int_{text{supp}(phi_d)} left( ldots left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} prod_{i = 2}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx_2 right) ldots right) d x_d right) \
    & = ldots
    = prod_{i = 1}^{d} int_{mathbb{R}} phi_i(x_i) dx_i
    end{align*}



    My Question
    I don't understand the steps $(ast)$ and especially $(star)$ . Can we just ''pull out'' a one-dimensional integral since it's just a constant?



    The proof is from Otto Forster: Analyis 3 (in German) on page 3.
    This was a homework assignment and the corrector gave full marks to this answer but suggested using induction instead of the $ldots$-step.
    Could someone please show that induction in light of the question above?



    Please bear in mind that this is from the very beginning of real analysis III and we have not learned measure theory yet.










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite












      Let $phi_1, ldots phi_d: mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be continuos and have compact support.
      Show that for
      $$
      f := bigotimes_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i: mathbb{R}^d to mathbb{R},
      (x_1, ldots, x_d) mapsto prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i)
      $$

      we have
      $$
      int_{mathbb{R}^d} f(x) dx = prod_{i = 1}^{d} int_{mathbb{R}} phi_i(x_i) dx_i
      $$




      Proof
      Since $f$ is continuous and has a compact support as well, we get
      begin{align*}
      int_{mathbb{R}^d} f(x) dx
      & = int_{text{supp}(f)} prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx
      overset{(ast)}{=} int_{text{supp}(phi_d)} left( ldots left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx_1 right) ldots right) d x_d \
      & overset{(star)}{=} left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} phi_1(x_1) dx_1 right) left( int_{text{supp}(phi_d)} left( ldots left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} prod_{i = 2}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx_2 right) ldots right) d x_d right) \
      & = ldots
      = prod_{i = 1}^{d} int_{mathbb{R}} phi_i(x_i) dx_i
      end{align*}



      My Question
      I don't understand the steps $(ast)$ and especially $(star)$ . Can we just ''pull out'' a one-dimensional integral since it's just a constant?



      The proof is from Otto Forster: Analyis 3 (in German) on page 3.
      This was a homework assignment and the corrector gave full marks to this answer but suggested using induction instead of the $ldots$-step.
      Could someone please show that induction in light of the question above?



      Please bear in mind that this is from the very beginning of real analysis III and we have not learned measure theory yet.










      share|cite|improve this question














      Let $phi_1, ldots phi_d: mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be continuos and have compact support.
      Show that for
      $$
      f := bigotimes_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i: mathbb{R}^d to mathbb{R},
      (x_1, ldots, x_d) mapsto prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i)
      $$

      we have
      $$
      int_{mathbb{R}^d} f(x) dx = prod_{i = 1}^{d} int_{mathbb{R}} phi_i(x_i) dx_i
      $$




      Proof
      Since $f$ is continuous and has a compact support as well, we get
      begin{align*}
      int_{mathbb{R}^d} f(x) dx
      & = int_{text{supp}(f)} prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx
      overset{(ast)}{=} int_{text{supp}(phi_d)} left( ldots left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} prod_{i = 1}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx_1 right) ldots right) d x_d \
      & overset{(star)}{=} left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} phi_1(x_1) dx_1 right) left( int_{text{supp}(phi_d)} left( ldots left( int_{text{supp}(phi_1)} prod_{i = 2}^{d} phi_i(x_i) dx_2 right) ldots right) d x_d right) \
      & = ldots
      = prod_{i = 1}^{d} int_{mathbb{R}} phi_i(x_i) dx_i
      end{align*}



      My Question
      I don't understand the steps $(ast)$ and especially $(star)$ . Can we just ''pull out'' a one-dimensional integral since it's just a constant?



      The proof is from Otto Forster: Analyis 3 (in German) on page 3.
      This was a homework assignment and the corrector gave full marks to this answer but suggested using induction instead of the $ldots$-step.
      Could someone please show that induction in light of the question above?



      Please bear in mind that this is from the very beginning of real analysis III and we have not learned measure theory yet.







      real-analysis integration functional-analysis measure-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 17 at 21:50









      Viktor Glombik

      458221




      458221






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Yes, you can pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ because it is a constant. To use induction simply note that when you pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ you are left with a similar integral with $n-1$ variables instead of $n$. By induction hypothesis this integral w.r.t $n-1$ variables can be written as a product of $n-1$ integrals.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • ok what about step $(ast)$?
            – Viktor Glombik
            Nov 18 at 9:15













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002856%2fproof-of-int-mathbbrd-fx-dx-prod-i-1d-int-mathbbr-phi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Yes, you can pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ because it is a constant. To use induction simply note that when you pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ you are left with a similar integral with $n-1$ variables instead of $n$. By induction hypothesis this integral w.r.t $n-1$ variables can be written as a product of $n-1$ integrals.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • ok what about step $(ast)$?
            – Viktor Glombik
            Nov 18 at 9:15

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Yes, you can pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ because it is a constant. To use induction simply note that when you pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ you are left with a similar integral with $n-1$ variables instead of $n$. By induction hypothesis this integral w.r.t $n-1$ variables can be written as a product of $n-1$ integrals.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • ok what about step $(ast)$?
            – Viktor Glombik
            Nov 18 at 9:15















          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          Yes, you can pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ because it is a constant. To use induction simply note that when you pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ you are left with a similar integral with $n-1$ variables instead of $n$. By induction hypothesis this integral w.r.t $n-1$ variables can be written as a product of $n-1$ integrals.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Yes, you can pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ because it is a constant. To use induction simply note that when you pull out $intphi_1(x_1), dx_1$ you are left with a similar integral with $n-1$ variables instead of $n$. By induction hypothesis this integral w.r.t $n-1$ variables can be written as a product of $n-1$ integrals.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 17 at 23:37









          Kavi Rama Murthy

          41.4k31751




          41.4k31751












          • ok what about step $(ast)$?
            – Viktor Glombik
            Nov 18 at 9:15




















          • ok what about step $(ast)$?
            – Viktor Glombik
            Nov 18 at 9:15


















          ok what about step $(ast)$?
          – Viktor Glombik
          Nov 18 at 9:15






          ok what about step $(ast)$?
          – Viktor Glombik
          Nov 18 at 9:15




















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002856%2fproof-of-int-mathbbrd-fx-dx-prod-i-1d-int-mathbbr-phi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bundesstraße 106

          Verónica Boquete

          Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten