Question on integration bounds

In summary, when integrating over a closed interval, the set of endpoints has zero contribution to the integral, regardless of the type of integral being used. This is due to the endpoints having measure zero, and the integral can be extended to an open interval through the use of improper integrals. Additionally, a function is Riemann integrable if and only if the set of discontinuities has measure zero, and changing the value of a function at a finite number of points does not affect the integral.
  • #1
member 428835
hey everyone

is integrating from [itex]-L<x<L[/itex] the same as integrating over [itex]-L \leq x \leq L[/itex]? I am looking for a rigorous response, so if you have time could you explain why, rather than simply yes or no?

thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If you're speaking about a Riemman Integral, then last I checked there was zero contribution from the endpoints.
 
  • #3
Which definition of integration are you using?
 
  • #4
Assuming the function is integrable on ##[-L,L]##, it will have the same integral on ##(-L,L)##.

For the Lebesgue integral, the reason is simple: the two endpoints have measure zero, so they do not contribute to the value of the integral.

The Riemann integral is only defined on closed intervals, so we have to define what is meant by integrating over ##(-L,L)##. The usual way to do this is to use improper integrals:
$$\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \int_{-L + \epsilon}^0 f(x) dx + \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \int_0^{L - \epsilon} f(x) dx$$
Note that we have
$$\int_{-L}^{L} f(x) dx = \int_{-L}^{-L + \epsilon} f(x) dx + \int_{-L + \epsilon}^0 f(x) dx + \int_0^{L - \epsilon} f(x) dx + \int_{L - \epsilon}^{L} f(x) dx$$
so to prove what we want, we simply need to show that
$$\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \int_{-L}^{-L + \epsilon} f(x) dx = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \int_{L - \epsilon}^{L} f(x) dx = 0$$
But this is quite straightforward; since ##f## is integrable over ##[-L,L]##, by definition it is bounded on that interval, say ##|f(x)| \leq M## for all ##x \in [-L,L]##. Then
$$\left| \int_{-L}^{-L + \epsilon} f(x) dx \right| \leq \int_{-L}^{-L + \epsilon} |f(x)| dx \leq \int_{-L}^{-L + \epsilon} M dx = M\epsilon$$
which converges to 0 as ##\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+##. We can do the same thing for the other small interval.
 
  • #5
pwsnafu, I'm curious what integral definitions produce different answers in this case?
 
  • #6
bossman27 said:
pwsnafu, I'm curious what integral definitions produce different answers in this case?

If ##\mu## is a measure on ℝ, then the integral wrt ##\mu## gives
##\int_{[a,b]} f \, d\mu = \int_{(a,b)} f \, d\mu + f(a)\, \mu(\{a\}) + f(b) \, \mu(\{b\})##.

So for any atomless measure (including the Lebesgue measure) the integrals are equal.
But if ##\mu(\{a\}) \neq 0## then the integrals are different.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
jbunniii said:
Assuming the function is integrable on ##[-L,L]##, it will have the same integral on ##(-L,L)##.

and for [itex]f(x)[/itex] to be integrable on ##[-L,L]##, is it sufficient [itex]f(x)[/itex] need only exist on that interval provided only a finite amount of discontinuities exist? i ask because i am integrating over a piecewise-smooth function.

for the record i am talking about a reimann integral. apologies for the ambiguity.

thanks i appreciate your response(s)!
 
  • #8
joshmccraney said:
and for [itex]f(x)[/itex] to be integrable on ##[-L,L]##, is it sufficient [itex]f(x)[/itex] need only exist on that interval provided only a finite amount of discontinuities exist? i ask because i am integrating over a piecewise-smooth function.

for the record i am talking about a reimann integral. apologies for the ambiguity.

thanks i appreciate your response(s)!

A function is Riemann integrable if the set of discontinuities has measure zero. In particular if there are a finite number of jump discontinuities, you have no problem.
 
  • #9
pwsnafu said:
A function is Riemann integrable if the set of discontinuities has measure zero.
Just for the sake of completeness I'll mention that the function must be bounded, and that the condition is both necessary and sufficient: a bounded function on a finite length closed interval [a,b] is Riemann integrable if and only if the set of discontinuities has measure zero.
 
  • #10
By the way, another way to see this is to observe that if ##f## is integrable over ##[-L,L]##, then integrating ##f## over ##(-L,L)## is equivalent to setting ##f(L) = f(-L) = 0##, and integrating over ##[-L, L]##. So the problem reduces to showing that if you change the value of a function at a finite number of points, the integral does not change. It's easy to see that this in turn is equivalent to showing that if you integrate a function which is zero everywhere except at a finite number of points (it suffices to consider just one point, by linearity), the result is zero. This is an easy Riemann sum argument.
 
  • #11
jbunniii said:
By the way, another way to see this is to observe that if ##f## is integrable over ##[-L,L]##, then integrating ##f## over ##(-L,L)## is equivalent to setting ##f(L) = f(-L) = 0##, and integrating over ##[-L, L]##.

thanks. i suddenly feel like an idiot for not realizing this.
 

1. What are integration bounds?

Integration bounds are the upper and lower limits that define the range of values for which an integral is calculated. They determine the portion of the function that is being integrated.

2. Why do we need integration bounds?

Integration bounds are necessary because they help us to accurately determine the area under a curve or the volume of a solid. They also help us to specify the specific range of values for which the integral is being calculated.

3. How do you choose the integration bounds?

The choice of integration bounds depends on the problem at hand and the function being integrated. One approach is to identify the points of intersection between the function and the x-axis, and use those as the integration bounds. Another method is to use known values such as the limits of the domain of the function.

4. What happens if the integration bounds are incorrect?

If the integration bounds are incorrect, the calculated result will also be incorrect. The integral will not accurately represent the area or volume being calculated. Additionally, if the bounds are too small, the integral may underestimate the area or volume, while if the bounds are too large, the integral may overestimate the area or volume.

5. Can integration bounds be negative?

Yes, integration bounds can be negative. This usually occurs when integrating functions that have negative values within the specified range. It is important to define the negative integration bounds correctly to get an accurate result.

Similar threads

  • Calculus
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
723
Replies
2
Views
240
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
262
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top