In mathematics, a locally integrable function (sometimes also called locally summable function)[1] is a function which is integrable (so its integral is finite) on every compact subset of its domain of definition. The importance of such functions lies in the fact that their function space is similar to Lp spaces, but its members are not required to satisfy any growth restriction on their behavior at the boundary of their domain (at infinity if the domain is unbounded): in other words, locally integrable functions can grow arbitrarily fast at the domain boundary, but are still manageable in a way similar to ordinary integrable functions.
i.e. its Lebesgue integral is finite on all compact subsetsK of Ω,[3] then f is called locally integrable. The set of all such functions is denoted by L1,loc(Ω):
The classical definition of a locally integrable function involves only measure theoretic and topological[4] concepts and can be carried over abstract to complex-valued functions on a topological measure space(X, Σ, μ):[5] however, since the most common application of such functions is to distribution theory on Euclidean spaces,[2] all the definitions in this and the following sections deal explicitly only with this important case.
An alternative definition
Definition 2.[6] Let Ω be an open set in the Euclidean space . Then a functionf : Ω → such that
for each test functionφ ∈ C∞ c(Ω) is called locally integrable, and the set of such functions is denoted by L1,loc(Ω). Here C∞ c(Ω) denotes the set of all infinitely differentiable functions φ : Ω → with compact support contained in Ω.
Lemma 1. A given function f : Ω → is locally integrable according to Definition 1 if and only if it is locally integrable according to Definition 2, i.e.
Only if part: Let K be a compact subset of the open set Ω. We will first construct a test function φK ∈ C∞ c(Ω) which majorises the indicator functionχK of K.
The usual set distance[9] between K and the boundary∂Ω is strictly greater than zero, i.e.
hence it is possible to choose a real numberδ such that Δ > 2δ > 0 (if ∂Ω is the empty set, take Δ = ∞). Let Kδ and K2δ denote the closedδ-neighborhood and 2δ-neighborhood of K, respectively. They are likewise compact and satisfy
Now use convolution to define the function φK : Ω → by
where φδ is a mollifier constructed by using the standard positive symmetric one. Obviously φK is non-negative in the sense that φK ≥ 0, infinitely differentiable, and its support is contained in K2δ, in particular it is a test function. Since φK(x) = 1 for all x ∈ K, we have that χK ≤ φK.
Let f be a locally integrable function according to Definition 2. Then
Since this holds for every compact subset K of Ω, the function f is locally integrable according to Definition 1. □
Generalization: locally p-integrable functions
Definition 3.[10] Let Ω be an open set in the Euclidean space and f : Ω → be a Lebesgue measurable function. If, for a given p with 1 ≤ p ≤ +∞, f satisfies
i.e., it belongs to Lp(K) for all compact subsetsK of Ω, then f is called locallyp-integrable or also p-locally integrable.[10] The set of all such functions is denoted by Lp,loc(Ω):
An alternative definition, completely analogous to the one given for locally integrable functions, can also be given for locally p-integrable functions: it can also be and proven equivalent to the one in this section.[11] Despite their apparent higher generality, locally p-integrable functions form a subset of locally integrable functions for every p such that 1 < p ≤ +∞.[12]
Notation
Apart from the different glyphs which may be used for the uppercase "L",[13] there are few variants for the notation of the set of locally integrable functions
Theorem 2. Every function f belonging to Lp(Ω), 1 ≤ p ≤ +∞, where Ω is an open subset of , is locally integrable.
Proof. The case p = 1 is trivial, therefore in the sequel of the proof it is assumed that 1 < p ≤ +∞. Consider the characteristic functionχK of a compact subset K of Ω: then, for p ≤ +∞,
where
q is a positive number such that 1/p + 1/q = 1 for a given 1 ≤ p ≤ +∞
the theorem is true also for functions f belonging only to the space of locally p-integrable functions, therefore the theorem implies also the following result.
Corollary 1. Every function in , , is locally integrable, i. e. belongs to .
Note: If is an open subset of that is also bounded, then one has the standard inclusion which makes sense given the above inclusion . But the first of these statements is not true if is not bounded; then it is still true that for any , but not that . To see this, one typically considers the function , which is in but not in for any finite .
L1,loc is the space of densities of absolutely continuous measures
The proof of this result is sketched by (Schwartz 1998, p. 18). Rephrasing its statement, this theorem asserts that every locally integrable function defines an absolutely continuous measure and conversely that every absolutely continuous measures defines a locally integrable function: this is also, in the abstract measure theory framework, the form of the important Radon–Nikodym theorem given by Stanisław Saks in his treatise.[16]
Examples
The constant function 1 defined on the real line is locally integrable but not globally integrable since the real line has infinite measure. More generally, constants, continuous functions[17] and integrable functions are locally integrable.[18]
The function for x ∈ (0, 1) is locally but not globally integrable on (0, 1). It is locally integrable since any compact set K ⊆ (0, 1) has positive distance from 0 and f is hence bounded on K. This example underpins the initial claim that locally integrable functions do not require the satisfaction of growth conditions near the boundary in bounded domains.
The function
is not locally integrable in x = 0: it is indeed locally integrable near this point since its integral over every compact set not including it is finite. Formally speaking, :[19] however, this function can be extended to a distribution on the whole as a Cauchy principal value.[20]
The preceding example raises a question: does every function which is locally integrable in Ω ⊊ admit an extension to the whole as a distribution? The answer is negative, and a counterexample is provided by the following function:
Again it does not define any distribution on the whole , if k1 or k2 are not zero: the only distributional global solution of such equation is therefore the zero distribution, and this shows how, in this branch of the theory of differential equations, the methods of the theory of distributions cannot be expected to have the same success achieved in other branches of the same theory, notably in the theory of linear differential equations with constant coefficients.[22]
^Another slight variant of this definition, chosen by Vladimirov (2002, p. 1), is to require only that K ⋐ Ω (or, using the notation of Gilbarg & Trudinger (2001, p. 9), K ⊂⊂ Ω), meaning that Kis strictly included inΩ i.e. it is a set having compact closurestrictly included in the given ambient set.
^The notion of compactness must obviously be defined on the given abstract measure space.
^This is the approach developed for example by Cafiero (1959, pp. 285–342) and by Saks (1937, chapter I), without dealing explicitly with the locally integrable case.
^This approach was praised by Schwartz (1998, pp. 16–17) who remarked also its usefulness, however using Definition 1 to define locally integrable functions.
^Be noted that Maz'ya and Shaposhnikova define explicitly only the "localized" version of the Sobolev spaceWk,p(Ω), nevertheless explicitly asserting that the same method is used to define localized versions of all other Banach spaces used in the cited book: in particular, Lp,loc(Ω) is introduced on page 44.
^According to Saks (1937, p. 36), "If E is a set of finite measure, or, more generally the sum of a sequence of sets of finite measure (μ), then, in order that an additive function of a set (𝔛) on E be absolutely continuous on E, it is necessary and sufficient that this function of a set be the indefinite integral of some integrable function of a point of E". Assuming (μ) to be the Lebesgue measure, the two statements can be seen to be equivalent.
^For a brief discussion of this example, see (Schwartz 1998, pp. 131–132).
References
Cafiero, Federico (1959), Misura e integrazione, Monografie matematiche del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (in Italian), vol. 5, Roma: Edizioni Cremonese, pp. VII+451, MR0215954, Zbl0171.01503. Measure and integration (as the English translation of the title reads) is a definitive monograph on integration and measure theory: the treatment of the limiting behavior of the integral of various kind of sequences of measure-related structures (measurable functions, measurable sets, measures and their combinations) is somewhat conclusive.
Maz'ya, Vladimir G. (2011) [1985], Sobolev Spaces. With Applications to Elliptic Partial Differential Equations., Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 342 (2nd revised and augmented ed.), Berlin–Heidelberg–New York: Springer Verlag, pp. xxviii+866, ISBN978-3-642-15563-5, MR2777530, Zbl1217.46002.
Schwartz, Laurent (1998) [1966], Théorie des distributions, Publications de l'Institut de Mathématique de l'Université de Strasbourg (in French) (Nouvelle ed.), Paris: Hermann Éditeurs, pp. xiii+420, ISBN2-7056-5551-4, MR0209834, Zbl0149.09501.