I'm curious as to if anyone can provide some feedback on this proof.
If $f:[a,b]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ continuous, $f\geq 0$, $\int_{a}^{b}f=0$ then $f=0$.
My proof: Let's assume there exists some $c\in [a,b]$ such that $f(c)>0$. Then $f>0$ on an open set $c\in I\subset [a,b]$, this must be true because otherwise we would have a non-continuous piecewise function, $f(x)=0$ for all $x\in [a,b]-\{c\}$ and $f(c)=0$. Now let's build a lower Darboux sum greater than $0$.
$L(f,\sigma)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} m_i(f)\,\Delta x_i=m_k(f)\,\Delta x_i>0,$ where my partition is $\sigma=\{ a=x_0<x_1<\dots<x_n=b \}$ picked in a way such that $[x_k,x_{k+1}]\subset I$. Also $m_k(f)=\inf\{f(x):x\in [x_k,x_{k+1}]\}$. Now we can conclude that $\underline{\int_a^b}f=\sup \{\text{L}(f,\sigma):\sigma \in \ \text{the set of all partitions of} \ [a,b] \}>0$ but this contradicts the fact that $\underline{\int_a^b} f=\int_a^b f=0$. Therefore $f=0$.
What do you think? The book "A First Course in Real Analysis by Sterling Berberian" gives a hint to help the student with the proof and says: Assume $f(c)>0$ at some point c, argue that $f(x)\geq \frac{1}{2}f(c)$ on a subinterval of $[a,b]$ and construct a lower sum for $f$ that is $>0$.
As you can see I based most of my proof on that help, but not entirely. If you have any idea as to how to properly use the help please share it!.
Simpler idea
If $f(c)>0$ and $f$ is continuous, then $f(x)\ge\epsilon>0$ on a neighborhood $[u,v]$ of $c$. Then:
$$\int_a^b f\ge\int_u^v f\ge\epsilon(v-u)>0$$
In your proof using Darboux sums, you still need to prove $f(x)\ge\epsilon>0$ on a neighborhood of $c$ in order to show that the lower Darboux sum is positive (i.e. $m_k(f)>0$). Otherwise, even if $f(x)>0$ on $[x_k,x_{k+1}]$, you may still have $m_k(f)=0$. As in $\inf\{1,1/2,\ldots 1/n \ldots\}=0$, even though each element of the set is positive.