Expand integration and undesirable points

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter husseinshimal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration Points
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on expanding integration to include functions with undesirable points, questioning whether this approach is more general than using measurement set theory. The function F(x) is defined over the interval [a,b] and involves subsets of natural, rational, and irrational numbers. The integration is proposed in terms of upper and lower Darboux sums, with a comparison made to Riemann and Lebesgue integration. The conclusion emphasizes that the suggested method may be weaker than Lebesgue integration, which effectively integrates over all measurable sets.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of integration concepts, specifically Riemann and Lebesgue integration.
  • Familiarity with upper and lower Darboux sums.
  • Knowledge of set theory, particularly regarding countable and uncountable sets.
  • Basic comprehension of real analysis and functions defined on intervals.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the differences between Riemann and Lebesgue integration in detail.
  • Learn about upper and lower Darboux sums and their applications in real analysis.
  • Explore the implications of integrating over measurable sets in Lebesgue integration.
  • Investigate the role of undesirable points in integration and their impact on function behavior.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in advanced integration techniques and their theoretical implications.

husseinshimal
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
The purpose behinde this post is an attempt to expand integration space to include functions with undesirable points where the function could be undefined.I need help to understand if this post makes sense.The main question here, is this way could be more general than using the measurement set theory to expand the integration?

Assume the function F(x),

F:[a,b]→R
We will put the interval[a,b] as acombination of subsets, UGk,




UGk=GNUGQUGQ̀...etc.(U,here stands for combination symbol) which stands for natural set,rational set ,irrational set,….etc.




Lets define the subsets,

өi={gk:F(xi)≥gk≥0},

xiЄ[a,b],

Let,(pi) be apartitoning of Gk in [a,b] and (pөi) apartitioning of(өi),


(Mөi=SUPөi), and (mөi=infөi),

(UFөi,pi)= Σi Mөi(xi-xi-1), (UFөi,pi)=upper darboux sum.

(LFөi,pi)= Σi mөi(xi-xi-1),(LFөi,pi)=lowe darboux sum.

(UFөi,pi,Pөi)=inf{UFөi:piPөi,(Pөi) partioning of(өi), (pi) partitioning of (Gk)},

(LFөi,pi,Pөi)=sup{LFөi:piPөi,(Pөi) partioning of(өi),(pi) partitioning (Gk)},

now, we put the integration in the form,

∫Fөi,over,Gk={0,UFөi}={0,LFөi}=the subsets,sөi,


∫F,over,[a,b]=Usөi


for example;

f(x):[0,1]→R,

f(x)=x , xЄ irrational numbers=Q̀, within[0,1],

f(x)=1,xЄ rational numbers=Q, within[0,1],

∫F,over,[o,1]={0,1\2}Q̀,U{0,1}Q={0,1\2}R,U,{1\2,1}Q , ,i.e,the integration would involve the real numbers within {0,1\2} plus the rational numbers within {1\2,1},(Q̀,Q and,R,are suffixes her and, U, stands for combination symbol.)

one might say it seems to be similar to the difference between Riemann integration and Lebesgue integration.

in Lebesgue integration,the above example would be, μ(0,1\2)inQ`set+μ(0,1)inQset=1\2+0=1\2,iam suggesting to keep integration in form of combination of subsets regardless they were countable or not.wouldnot this be more genral?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Frankly, I'm not at all clear what you are doing. You seem to be staying with intervals with the exception of "undesirable points". If so, your integration is much weaker than Lebesque integration in which we can integrate over all measurable sets. Other than the fact that all countable sets have measure 0 and so are trivial in Lebesque integration, I don't see what "countable or not" has to do with it.

The Lebesque integral of your f (f(x)= x if x is irrational, 0 if rational, 0< x< 1) is trivially 1/2. I have no idea why you would worry about any "undesirable points".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
10K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K