Compare Riemann Integration & Definite Integration Accuracy

Click For Summary
Riemann integration and definite integration are fundamentally the same, as both refer to the process of calculating the area under a curve, though Riemann integration often involves approximating this area using Riemann sums. The accuracy of Riemann sums depends on the number of rectangles used; the error decreases as the number of rectangles increases, with a specific formula available in calculus resources. While Riemann integration is exact when evaluated with limits, the approximation methods like the trapezoidal rule and Simpson's rule can provide better accuracy for practical applications. The discussion highlights the importance of terminology, clarifying that "ordinary integration" typically refers to Riemann integration. Ultimately, both methods can yield accurate results, but their approaches and applications may differ.
shreyarora
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Can some please draw a comparison between Riemann Integration and normal definite integration in terms of accuracy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi shreyarora, and welcome to PF :smile:

Can you please expand your question a bit?
What do you mean with "normal definite integration", to my knowledge that simply is the Riemann integral?
And what do you mean with accuracy? Riemann integration is 100% accurate, it uses no approximations what-so-ever.

We'll be in a better position to answer you if you let is know where you're coming from...
 
I suspect that by "Riemann integration" he is referring to actually using a finite number of rectangles to approximate the integral- that is, Riemann sums.

Shreyarora, the formula for the accuracy is given in any Calculus book. For example, on page 487 of Salas, Hille, and Etgen's Calculus, the error in using n rectangles to approximate
\int_a^b f(t)dt
is given as less than
(f(b)- f(a))\frac{b- a}{n}

So, for example, if you use 10 rectangles to integrate
\int_0^1 x^2 dx
Your error would be less than (1-0)((1- 0)/10) or 1/10.

Of course, the trapezoidal method and Simpson's rule give better accuracy.
 
Thanks HallofIvy, I think you got most of what I meant say.

By normal integration I meant that, if you integrate x^2 from a to b, you substitute limits to x^3/3.
whereas, the computation differs while evaluating integral using Riemann Integration.

I am actually writing an article wherein I have to justify that using Riemann Integration yields accurate results to a real life problem over the "normal definite integration" that I have defined above.

Or is it actually possible to compare the two methods?
 
Its probably better (and less confusing) to say "Riemann sum" instead of Riemann integration. 'Ordinary integration' is Riemann integration. That is,

<br /> \int_1^2 x^2 dx=\frac{1}{3}x^3|_1^2=\frac{7}{3}<br />

I just performed Riemann integration. But I could I have approximated the Riemann integral with a Riemann sum using say, the left endpoint:

<br /> \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} (1+k\Delta x)^2 \Delta x<br />

where \Delta x =(2-1)/N
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K