Continuity at a point implies integrability around point?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between continuity and integrability of functions, specifically addressing whether a function that is continuous at a point p must be integrable over a closed interval [a,b] containing p. The definition of integrability used is from Spivak, which involves upper and lower sums. The initial proof attempt suggests that continuity at p implies integrability on [a,b], but the author ultimately concludes that the proof fails because the interval cannot depend on ε. The need for a counterexample to illustrate non-integrable functions is highlighted.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of continuity in real analysis
  • Familiarity with the definition of integrability from Spivak
  • Knowledge of upper and lower sums in the context of Riemann integration
  • Basic concepts of partitions in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research counterexamples of non-integrable functions, such as the Dirichlet function
  • Study the implications of the Heine-Cantor theorem on continuity and integrability
  • Explore the concept of uniform continuity and its relationship to integrability
  • Learn about Lebesgue integration and how it differs from Riemann integration
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and researchers interested in real analysis, particularly those exploring the connections between continuity and integrability of functions.

Site
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
If a function f is continuous at a point p, must there be some closed interval [a,b] including p such that f is integrable on the [a,b]?

As a definition of integrable I'm using the one provided by Spivak: f is integrable on [a,b] if and only if for every e>0 there is a partition P of [a,b] such that U(f,P)-L(f,P)<e, where U denotes an upper sum and L denotes a lower sum.

Here is what I think is a proof, but which probably contains some error:

Since f is continuous at a point p, there is some s'>0 such that for every point x, if |x-p|< s' then | f(x) - f(p) | < e/2 for arbitrary e>0. Denote s=min(s', 1). Choose points a and b such that (p-s) < a < p < b < (p+s) Let a be a point with a<p and and p-a<s. Let b be a point with b>p and b-p<s.

For our partition P, we can use P={a,b}.
Clearly, L(f,P) > s ( f(p) - e/2 ) and U(f,P) < s ( f(p) + e/2 ).
So U(f,P)-L(f,P) < s*e < e.

Thus f is integrable on [a,b].

If this proof works, then it provides an easy way of proving that continuity implies integrability on an interval [a,b]. You just examine
z = sup {x: a≤x≤b and f is continuous on [a,x] }. Since f is also continuous at z, there is some interval around z [p,q] which is integrable. Since [a,p] is integrable and so is [p,q], [a,q] is integrable, which contradicts the fact that z is the least upper bound. Thus z=b.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It doesn't work. To prove integrability on an interval you have to fix the interval. Then show for any e>0 you can find such a partition. The interval can't depend on e. I would look for a counterexample. What kind of examples of nonintegrable functions do you know?
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K