Checking the integrability of a function using upper and lowers sums

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integrability of a specific bounded function defined on the interval [0,2]. Participants explore the conditions under which the upper and lower sums converge and the implications for the integrability of the function, referencing definitions and properties from real analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a function defined as zero everywhere except at one point, questioning its integrability based on the definitions of upper and lower sums.
  • Another participant argues that the infimum of the upper sum can be shown to be zero by constructing partitions that bring the upper sum values closer together.
  • Several participants discuss the properties of infimum and supremum, with one asking for clarification on how the infimum can be zero and what it means in the context of real analysis.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between minimum and infimum, with participants noting that the infimum does not need to be an element of the set.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the integrability of the function, with some agreeing on the properties of infimum but others questioning the reasoning behind certain claims. The discussion remains unresolved as to whether the function is integrable based on the provided definitions.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the need for a deeper understanding of the properties of infimum and supremum, indicating that the discussion may hinge on these concepts. There is also a recognition that the minimum may not exist in the set while the infimum does.

Adesh
Messages
735
Reaction score
191
TL;DR
A function is integrable if and only if ##sup\{L(f,P)\}=inf\{U(f,P)\}##.
Hello and Good Afternoon! Today I need the help of respectable member of this forum on the topic of integrability. According to Mr. Michael Spivak: A function ##f## which is bounded on ##[a,b]## is integrable on ##[a,b]## if and only if
$$ sup \{L (f,P) : \text{P belongs to the set of partitions} \} = inf\{ U(f,P): \text{P belongs to the set of of partitions}\}$$
(notaions might cause some problem, ##L(f,P)## means the "lower sum of ##f## on the partition ##P##" and similarly for the ##U(f,P)##)
Now, let's consider a function ##f## which is bounded and defined on ##[0,2]## as
$$f(x)=
\begin{cases}
0 & x\neq 1 \\
1 & x =1
\end{cases}
$$
Let's take a partition ##P## of ##[a,b]## as ## P = \{t_0, t_1, ... t_{j-1}, t_{j}, ... t_n\}##, such that ##t_{j-1} \lt 1 \lt t_j##. Define lower and upper sum on this partition,
$$ L(f,P) = \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} m_i (t_i - t_{i-1}) + m_j ( t_j - t_{j-1}) + \sum_{i=j+1}^{n} m_i (t_i - t_{i-1})$$
##m_i## represents the minimum value of ##f## in the ##i## th interval, so essentially we have ##L(f,P) = 0## for all partitions.

$$U(f,P) =\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} M_i (t_i - t_{i-1}) + M_j ( t_j - t_{j-1}) + \sum_{i=j+1}^{n} M_i (t_i - t_{i-1})$$
##M_i## represents the maximum value of ##f## in the ##i## th interval, only ##M_j=1## while all the other ##M_i## are zero. So, we have ##U(f,P) = t_j - t_{j-1}## for the current partition that we have.

But we can make our partitions only in two ways with regards to ##1##, either ##1## will fall in between in some ##j## th interval or it will be an end point of two intervals. For the first case we found our upper sum as stated above, let's do the second case. Define the partition ##P' = \{t_0, t_1, ... t_{j-1}, 1 , t_{j+1}, ... t_n\}##, now the upper sum on this partition is
$$U(f,P') = \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} M_i (t_i - t_{i-1}) + M_j (1 - t_{j-1}) + M'_{j-1} (t_{j+1} - 1) + \sum_{i= J+2}^{n} M_i (t_i - t_{i-1})$$
We have ##M_j = M'_j = 1##, and all other ##M_i## are zero, therefore, for this case we have ##U(f,P) = t_{j+1} - t_j##.

Now, we can see that ##sup\{L(f,P)\} =0## but ##inf\{U(f,P)\} = ?##. I have no reason to conclude that the infimum of upper sum is zero and without it I cannot say ##f## is integrable although we know that ##f## is integrable by ##\epsilon## definition of integrals.

Please guide me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have already showed that $$U(f,P)=t_{j+1}-t_j$$ or $$U(f,P)=t_j-t_{j-1}$$ so it will be (in the first case but similar for the second case)$$inf(U(f,P))=inf(t_{j+1}-t_{j})$$. This is essentially equivalent to $$inf\{(x-y)|x>y>0\}=0$$ , because for any given partition P we can construct a partition P' that is the same as P , except that we ll choose ##t'_j## and ##t'_{j+1}## to be closer to each other than ##t_j## and ##t_{j+1}## are.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: troglodyte and Adesh
Delta2 said:
This is essentially equivalent to

$$inf{(x−y)|x>y>0}=0$$​
Sir, how you got the above infinimum equal to zero? Is it some property of infinimum, if yes then where can I learn about them? It’s just in Real Analysis that I find the words “sup” and “inf” and hence all I know is the manual process of finding the infinimum and supremum.
 
Adesh said:
Sir, how you got the above infinimum equal to zero? Is it some property of infinimum, if yes then where can I learn about them? It’s just in Real Analysis that I find the words “sup” and “inf” and hence all I know is the manual process of finding the infinimum and supremum.
You can prove that the above infimum is zero by first noticing that ##x-y>0## so 0 is a lower bound, so ##infimum\geq 0## and then by arguing that if the infimum is some ##\epsilon>0## you could find ##x>0## and ##y>0## such ##(x-y)<\epsilon##.

But what exactly do you mean by the "manual process" of finding the infimum and supremum?
 
Delta2 said:
You can prove that the above infimum is zero by first noticing that ##x-y>0## so 0 is a lower bound, so ##infimum\geq 0## and then by arguing that if the infimum is some ##\epsilon>0## you could find ##x>0## and ##y>0## such ##(x-y)<\epsilon##.

But what exactly do you mean by the "manual process" of finding the infimum and supremum?
Manual process means taking out the minimum value from the set by inspection. But I think ##inf## need not to be in the set itself.
 
Adesh said:
Manual process means taking out the minimum value from the set by inspection. But I think ##inf## need not to be in the set itself.
yes that's right, when the minimum exists (inside the set) then it is also the infimum, but sometimes the minimum does not exist, but the infimum exists and this is the case here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Adesh

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K