If f is continuous on [a,b] and $f(x) geq 0$, for $x in [a,b]$, but $f$ is not the zero function, prove that...












0















This question already has an answer here:




  • Is it true that $int_{a}^b h^2=0implies h=0$?

    2 answers




If f is continuous on [a,b] and $f(x) geq 0$, for $x in [a,b]$, but $f$ is not the zero function, prove that $int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx > 0$



Could anyone give me a hint for this proof please?










share|cite|improve this question













marked as duplicate by Arthur, egreg calculus
Users with the  calculus badge can single-handedly close calculus questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Dec 4 '18 at 9:00


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.




















    0















    This question already has an answer here:




    • Is it true that $int_{a}^b h^2=0implies h=0$?

      2 answers




    If f is continuous on [a,b] and $f(x) geq 0$, for $x in [a,b]$, but $f$ is not the zero function, prove that $int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx > 0$



    Could anyone give me a hint for this proof please?










    share|cite|improve this question













    marked as duplicate by Arthur, egreg calculus
    Users with the  calculus badge can single-handedly close calculus questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

    $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
    var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
    $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

    $hover.hover(
    function() {
    $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
    messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
    transient: false,
    position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
    dismissable: false,
    relativeToBody: true
    });
    },
    function() {
    StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
    }
    );
    });
    });
    Dec 4 '18 at 9:00


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.


















      0












      0








      0








      This question already has an answer here:




      • Is it true that $int_{a}^b h^2=0implies h=0$?

        2 answers




      If f is continuous on [a,b] and $f(x) geq 0$, for $x in [a,b]$, but $f$ is not the zero function, prove that $int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx > 0$



      Could anyone give me a hint for this proof please?










      share|cite|improve this question














      This question already has an answer here:




      • Is it true that $int_{a}^b h^2=0implies h=0$?

        2 answers




      If f is continuous on [a,b] and $f(x) geq 0$, for $x in [a,b]$, but $f$ is not the zero function, prove that $int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx > 0$



      Could anyone give me a hint for this proof please?





      This question already has an answer here:




      • Is it true that $int_{a}^b h^2=0implies h=0$?

        2 answers








      real-analysis calculus integration riemann-integration






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 4 '18 at 8:57









      hopefullyhopefully

      134112




      134112




      marked as duplicate by Arthur, egreg calculus
      Users with the  calculus badge can single-handedly close calculus questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
      Dec 4 '18 at 9:00


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






      marked as duplicate by Arthur, egreg calculus
      Users with the  calculus badge can single-handedly close calculus questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
      Dec 4 '18 at 9:00


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          If $f(c) >0$ then there exists $r>0$ such that $f(x) geq frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| leq r$. Hence $int_a^{b} f geq int_{c-r}^{c+r} f(x) dx geq frac {f(c)} 2 (2r) >0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • could you explain by words please?
            – hopefully
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:25










          • I do not understand why $f(x) geq (f(c)/2)$
            – hopefully
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:27












          • There exists $r$ such that $|f(x)-f(c) |<frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| <r$. [ This is because $f$ is continuous at $c$]. Now $f(c) = f(x) +(f(c)-f(x)) < f(x)+ frac {f(c)} 2$ which gives $f(x) > f(c) -frac {f(c)} 2 =frac {f(c)} 2$.
            – Kavi Rama Murthy
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:30












          • but why you take $epsilon $ by this value specifically?
            – hopefully
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:31












          • @hopefully Any $epsilon$ smaller than $f(c)$ will work fine.
            – Kavi Rama Murthy
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:32



















          1














          f is not the zero function, and f ≥ 0, so f >0 somewhere. Since f is continuous, f>0 in a tiny interval, then the integral is positive in this interval.






          share|cite|improve this answer




























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            1














            If $f(c) >0$ then there exists $r>0$ such that $f(x) geq frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| leq r$. Hence $int_a^{b} f geq int_{c-r}^{c+r} f(x) dx geq frac {f(c)} 2 (2r) >0$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • could you explain by words please?
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:25










            • I do not understand why $f(x) geq (f(c)/2)$
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:27












            • There exists $r$ such that $|f(x)-f(c) |<frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| <r$. [ This is because $f$ is continuous at $c$]. Now $f(c) = f(x) +(f(c)-f(x)) < f(x)+ frac {f(c)} 2$ which gives $f(x) > f(c) -frac {f(c)} 2 =frac {f(c)} 2$.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:30












            • but why you take $epsilon $ by this value specifically?
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:31












            • @hopefully Any $epsilon$ smaller than $f(c)$ will work fine.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:32
















            1














            If $f(c) >0$ then there exists $r>0$ such that $f(x) geq frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| leq r$. Hence $int_a^{b} f geq int_{c-r}^{c+r} f(x) dx geq frac {f(c)} 2 (2r) >0$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • could you explain by words please?
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:25










            • I do not understand why $f(x) geq (f(c)/2)$
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:27












            • There exists $r$ such that $|f(x)-f(c) |<frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| <r$. [ This is because $f$ is continuous at $c$]. Now $f(c) = f(x) +(f(c)-f(x)) < f(x)+ frac {f(c)} 2$ which gives $f(x) > f(c) -frac {f(c)} 2 =frac {f(c)} 2$.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:30












            • but why you take $epsilon $ by this value specifically?
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:31












            • @hopefully Any $epsilon$ smaller than $f(c)$ will work fine.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:32














            1












            1








            1






            If $f(c) >0$ then there exists $r>0$ such that $f(x) geq frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| leq r$. Hence $int_a^{b} f geq int_{c-r}^{c+r} f(x) dx geq frac {f(c)} 2 (2r) >0$.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            If $f(c) >0$ then there exists $r>0$ such that $f(x) geq frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| leq r$. Hence $int_a^{b} f geq int_{c-r}^{c+r} f(x) dx geq frac {f(c)} 2 (2r) >0$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 4 '18 at 8:59









            Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

            52.4k32055




            52.4k32055












            • could you explain by words please?
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:25










            • I do not understand why $f(x) geq (f(c)/2)$
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:27












            • There exists $r$ such that $|f(x)-f(c) |<frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| <r$. [ This is because $f$ is continuous at $c$]. Now $f(c) = f(x) +(f(c)-f(x)) < f(x)+ frac {f(c)} 2$ which gives $f(x) > f(c) -frac {f(c)} 2 =frac {f(c)} 2$.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:30












            • but why you take $epsilon $ by this value specifically?
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:31












            • @hopefully Any $epsilon$ smaller than $f(c)$ will work fine.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:32


















            • could you explain by words please?
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:25










            • I do not understand why $f(x) geq (f(c)/2)$
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:27












            • There exists $r$ such that $|f(x)-f(c) |<frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| <r$. [ This is because $f$ is continuous at $c$]. Now $f(c) = f(x) +(f(c)-f(x)) < f(x)+ frac {f(c)} 2$ which gives $f(x) > f(c) -frac {f(c)} 2 =frac {f(c)} 2$.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:30












            • but why you take $epsilon $ by this value specifically?
              – hopefully
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:31












            • @hopefully Any $epsilon$ smaller than $f(c)$ will work fine.
              – Kavi Rama Murthy
              Dec 4 '18 at 10:32
















            could you explain by words please?
            – hopefully
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:25




            could you explain by words please?
            – hopefully
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:25












            I do not understand why $f(x) geq (f(c)/2)$
            – hopefully
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:27






            I do not understand why $f(x) geq (f(c)/2)$
            – hopefully
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:27














            There exists $r$ such that $|f(x)-f(c) |<frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| <r$. [ This is because $f$ is continuous at $c$]. Now $f(c) = f(x) +(f(c)-f(x)) < f(x)+ frac {f(c)} 2$ which gives $f(x) > f(c) -frac {f(c)} 2 =frac {f(c)} 2$.
            – Kavi Rama Murthy
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:30






            There exists $r$ such that $|f(x)-f(c) |<frac {f(c)} 2$ for $|x-c| <r$. [ This is because $f$ is continuous at $c$]. Now $f(c) = f(x) +(f(c)-f(x)) < f(x)+ frac {f(c)} 2$ which gives $f(x) > f(c) -frac {f(c)} 2 =frac {f(c)} 2$.
            – Kavi Rama Murthy
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:30














            but why you take $epsilon $ by this value specifically?
            – hopefully
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:31






            but why you take $epsilon $ by this value specifically?
            – hopefully
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:31














            @hopefully Any $epsilon$ smaller than $f(c)$ will work fine.
            – Kavi Rama Murthy
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:32




            @hopefully Any $epsilon$ smaller than $f(c)$ will work fine.
            – Kavi Rama Murthy
            Dec 4 '18 at 10:32











            1














            f is not the zero function, and f ≥ 0, so f >0 somewhere. Since f is continuous, f>0 in a tiny interval, then the integral is positive in this interval.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              1














              f is not the zero function, and f ≥ 0, so f >0 somewhere. Since f is continuous, f>0 in a tiny interval, then the integral is positive in this interval.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                f is not the zero function, and f ≥ 0, so f >0 somewhere. Since f is continuous, f>0 in a tiny interval, then the integral is positive in this interval.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                f is not the zero function, and f ≥ 0, so f >0 somewhere. Since f is continuous, f>0 in a tiny interval, then the integral is positive in this interval.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 4 '18 at 9:03









                Spade.KSpade.K

                111




                111















                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Tonle Sap (See)

                    I get strange results when I access the Sqlitedatabase with Unity C# via XAMPP

                    Guatemaltekische Davis-Cup-Mannschaft