The sharp fundamental theorem of calculus (absolute continuity)
Statement
Let . The following are equivalent.
- is absolutely continuous on .
- is differentiable almost everywhere on , , and
- There exists with for every ; and then almost everywhere.
In particular, for the Newton-Leibniz formula holds, and is exactly the class of functions for which it holds in this sense.
The identity must be required at every , not only at . The endpoint identity alone does not characterise absolute continuity. Let be the Cantor function and set on and on . Then is continuous, almost everywhere, , and
yet is not absolutely continuous, since it is not constant while carrying all its variation on a null set. The identity fails at , where the left side is and the right side is .
Remarks
Not proved in this library. It is recorded with citations and used in no proof here.
What would prove it. The implication from 3 to 1 is absolute continuity of the indefinite Lebesgue integral, which follows from the dominated convergence theorem (Dominated convergence theorem ‡). The implication from 3 to almost everywhere is the Lebesgue differentiation theorem (Lebesgue differentiation theorem for functions ‡). The hard direction, from 1 to 2, uses that is of bounded variation, hence differentiable almost everywhere by Lebesgue's differentiation theorem for monotone functions ‡, that with for increasing , and then a Vitali covering argument to upgrade the inequality to equality using the from absolute continuity. Every step is measure-theoretic.
Which page it serves. This is the natural endpoint of the fundamental theorems of calculus page, and the reason that page's results are called the working FTC rather than the FTC. That page proves: if is Riemann integrable on and is any antiderivative of on , then ; and if is continuous then is an antiderivative. Both statements carry hypotheses that the theorem above deletes. The library states the sharp version here so that no reader concludes the working FTC is the last word, and so that the counterexamples on that page (a derivative that is not Riemann integrable, the Cantor function, Volterra's function) have a stated theorem to be counterexamples to.
What this page's other items add. Banach-Zarecki theorem ‡ characterises the same class without mentioning an integral at all, and Henstock-Kurzweil versus Lebesgue: is Lebesgue integrable iff and are both HK integrable ‡ records the integral for which the Newton-Leibniz formula holds for every everywhere-differentiable , with no integrability hypothesis on whatsoever.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 4 results over 3 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Fundamental theorem of calculus, Lebesgue integral form (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Absolute continuity (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- C. Heil, Absolute continuity and the Banach-Zaretsky theorem (standard reference, not scraped)