Darboux integration, show inequality

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving an inequality related to the Lower Darboux sums of two bounded functions, f and g, defined on the interval [a,b], under the condition that g(x) is less than or equal to f(x) for all x in that interval.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the condition g(x) ≤ f(x) and consider whether the monotonicity of the functions is necessary for the proof. Some suggest examining cases based on the monotonicity of f and g, while others argue that monotonicity is not required.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the definitions of the Lower and Upper Darboux sums. Some participants have offered alternative approaches to the proof, indicating a productive exchange of ideas without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the definitions of the Lower and Upper Darboux sums, as well as the properties of infimum and supremum within the context of bounded functions. The participants are navigating the implications of the given conditions without resolving all uncertainties.

xsw001
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Suppose f, g:[a,b]->R are bounded & g(x)<=f(x) for all x in [a,b]
for P a partition of [a,b], show that L(g,P)<=L(f,P)

I don't know whether I should show by cases since I don't know the monotonicity of the both functions f and g. It seems like that the graphs of both functions have to behave the same way from the given condition g(x)<=f(x), isn't it? Or else how would I compare g(Xi) with f(Xi-1) or g(Xi-1) with f(x) though?

Case 1) suppose both f, g are monotone increasing
Case 2) suppose both f, g are monotone decreasing
Case 3) suppose f is monotone increasing and g is monotone decreasing
Case 4) suppose f is monotone decreasing and g is monotone increasing

Proof:
Since f, g are bounded, therefore there exists upper and lower integrals.
L(g,P)=sum g(Xi-1)(change of Xi) or L(g,P)=sum g(Xi)(change of Xi)
L(f,P)=sum f(Xi-1)(change of Xi) or L(f,P)=sum f(Xi)(change of Xi)
Since change of Xi are the same, we only need to compare sum g(Xi-1) with sum f(Xi-1) or sum g(Xi) with sum f(Xi).
Since g(x)<=f(x), it follows that sum g(Xi-1) <= sum f(Xi-1) or sum g(Xi) <= sum f(Xi)
Hence L(g,P) <= L(f,P)

Does it make sense? Any comments?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Can you first say what L(f,P) is supposed to be?
 


L(f,P) is the Lower Darboux Sum; L(f,P)=sum mi(Xi-Xi-1)
U(f,P) is the Upper Darboux Sum; U(f,P)=sum Mi(Xi-Xi-1)
f: is the function
P: is the partition of the domain [a,b]; P={Xo, X1, ... , Xn}
mi: is the greatest lower bound [Inf(f)]
Mi: is the least upper bound [Sup(f)]
delta Xi=Xi-Xi-1: each partition interval of domain [a,b] where Xo=a and Xn=b
 
Last edited:


I don't think you need monotonicity of any function: take a partition

[tex]P=\{x_0,...,x_n\}[/tex]

We know that [tex]f(x)\leq g(x), \forall x\in[a,b][/tex]. So since f and g are bounded, it follows that

[tex]m_{i,f}=\inf_{x\in[x_{i-1},x_i]}{f(x)}\leq \inf_{x\in[x_{i-1},x_i]}{f(x)}=m_{i,g}[/tex]

Therefore, it is obvious that

[tex]m_{i,f}(x_i-x_{i-1})\leq m_{i,f}(x_i-x_{i-1})[/tex]

Taking sums of both sides, yield

[tex]L_{f,P}=\sum_{i=0}^n{m_{i,f}(x_i-x_{i-1})}\leq\sum_{i=0}^n{m_{i,f}(x_i-x_{i-1})}=L_{g,P)[/tex]
 


Yeah, I thought so too, just need second opinion. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K