1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

An Integral Question

  1. Nov 25, 2008 #1
    I'm having a hard time understanding the proof of the following: Let a < b < c and let f: [a,c] -> R be Riemann integrable on [a,b], [b,c] and [a,c]. Then

    [tex]\int_a^c f(x) \, dx = \int_a^b f(x) \, dx + \int_b^c f(x) \, dx[/tex].

    Proof. Let C and C' be the characteristic functions of [a,b] and [b,c] respectively, defined on [a,c]. Then f = C f + C' f and the addition formula above follows from the linearity of the integral.

    This is such a facile proof. Sigh. I'm trying to fill in the missing details: I know that since f = C f + C' f, then

    [tex]\int_a^c f(x) \, dx = \int_a^c C(x) f(x) \, dx + \int_a^c C'(x) f(x) \, dx[/tex]

    where I've used the fact that characteristic functions are Riemann integrable and products of Riemann integrable functions are Riemann integrable. Now how would I show, without much fuss, that

    [tex]\int_a^c C(x) f(x) \, dx = \int_a^b f(x) \, dx [/tex]

    for example?
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 25, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just use the fact that C(x)=0 in the interval [b,c], so that C(x)f(x)=0 in this interval, and its integral=0.
  4. Nov 25, 2008 #3
    Where do I use that fact exactly?
  5. Nov 25, 2008 #4


    User Avatar

    Adding what mathman said to the end of the proof would be sufficient, but a rigorous proof could be done using upper and lower sums.
  6. Nov 25, 2008 #5
    Yeah. I decided to ditch that proof. I found a more elementary but longer proof using the definition of Riemann integration, which I found satisfactory.
  7. Nov 25, 2008 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Why don't you find the proof in the OP satisfactory?
  8. Nov 26, 2008 #7
    As I wrote, I don't know why

    [tex]\int_a^c C(x) f(x) \, dx = \int_a^b f(x) \, dx [/tex]

    is true.
  9. Nov 26, 2008 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    But you were given two justifications as to why that is true. The Riemann sums of C(x)f(x) will always be zero on [b,c].
  10. Nov 26, 2008 #9
    Those two justifications did nothing for me. I was hoping someone would give a simple argument that would not use Riemann sums. Oh well. Thanks anyways.
  11. Nov 27, 2008 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The integral from a to c is the sum of the integral from a to b and the integral from b to c. From a to b, C(x)=1, so the integral of Cf = integral of f. From b to c, C(x)=0, so Cf=0 and the integral = 0.
  12. Nov 27, 2008 #11
    That's a circular argument: You're using the very fact I want to prove.
  13. Nov 27, 2008 #12
    I don't know whether you will find the following proof useful, if you haven't already seen it before, but here it is an elementary proof of

    [tex]\int_a^c f(x) \, dx = \int_a^b f(x) \, dx + \int_b^c f(x) \, dx[/tex]


    Let a<c<b. Since the reiman sums do not depend on the way we may partition the interval [a,b] we can partition this interval first into two subintervals, let them

    [a,c] and [c,b] where c is the same point we are using in the integral

    Then we may do the following partitition to both intervals

    [tex]a=x_0<x_1<x_2<...<x_k=c[/tex] and [tex]c=x_k<x_{k+1}<...<x_n=b[/tex]

    So, we can form the following integral sums for both intervals:

    [tex]\sum_{i=1}^kf(\delta_i)\triangle x_i[/tex]

    [tex]\sum_{i=k}^nf(\delta_i)\triangle x_i[/tex]

    where [tex]\delta_i \in [x_{i-1},x_i][/tex] and

    [tex]\triangle x_i=x_i-x_{i-1}[/tex]

    Now, since we are dealing here with finite sums, then we have the following relation

    [tex]\sum_{i=1}^nf(\delta_i)\triangle x_i=\sum_{i=1}^kf(\delta_i)\triangle x_i + \sum_{i=k}^nf(\delta_i)\triangle x_i[/tex]

    Now, if [tex]max \triangle x_i->0[/tex] then taking the limit on both sides,we get our desired result.

    A simmilar argument follows in two other cases when c is not between a and b.
  14. Nov 28, 2008 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is NOT circular. I don't see what is needed to prove, unless you need a proof that multiplication by 1 leaves the function unchange and multiplication by 0 results in 0.
  15. Nov 28, 2008 #14
    I appologize to just throw stuff here, but i think that e(ho0n3's real question is what is a characteristic function. I think he is dealing with this problem, and hence it is not clear to him why C(x)=1 in [a,b] and C(x)=0 on [b,c]

    I think that a characteristic function of an interval say


    is as follows

    [tex]C(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}1,&\mbox{ if }
    x\in[x_1,x2]\\0, & \mbox{ if } x_2<x<x_1\end{array}\right.[/tex]

    So, this automatically would mean that if C(x) is your characteristic function on the interval [a,b] then C(x)=1 when x is in [a,b] and C(x)=0 when x is in [b,c] the same for C'(x)=1 if x is in [b,c] and C'(x)=0 when x is in [a,b]

    P.s. I once more appologize for i am only a freshman, and my advice shall probably turn out to be helpless and inappropriate.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2008
  16. Nov 28, 2008 #15
    Well, these two would also follow from the axioms of a field, right?

    Unless one wanted not to rely on algebra at all, but rather on dedekind cuts etc.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: An Integral Question
  1. Integration question (Replies: 4)

  2. Integral question (Replies: 9)

  3. Integral Question (Replies: 3)

  4. Integration question (Replies: 4)