MHB Fundamental Theorem Of Calculus (Second Form) - B&S Theorem 7.3.5 .... ....

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the proof of Theorem 7.3.5 from "Introduction to Real Analysis" by Bartle and Sherbert, specifically the inequalities involving the function f on the interval [c, c + h]. Participants seek clarification on how the expression (f(c) - ε) · h ≤ F(c + h) - F(c) = ∫[c to c + h] f ≤ (f(c) + ε) · h is derived. One participant reflects that since f(c) - ε is less than f(x) for all x in the interval, it supports the inequality. The conversation confirms that this reasoning is indeed correct. The thread emphasizes the importance of rigor in understanding the application of the theorem.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Introduction to Real Analysis" (Fourth Edition) by Robert G Bartle and Donald R Sherbert ...

I am focused on Chapter 7: The Riemann Integral ...

I need help in fully understanding an aspect of the proof of Theorem 7.3.5 ...Theorem 7.3.5 and its proof ... ... read as follows:
View attachment 7325In the above proof from Bartle and Sherbert we read the following:

" ... ... Now on the interval $$[c, c + h]$$ the function $$f$$ satisfies inequality (4), so that we have

$$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le F( c + h ) - F(c) = \int^{ c + h }_c f \le ( f(c) + \epsilon ) \cdot h$$

... ... "Can someone please demonstrate rigorously and in detail how Bartle and Sherbert arrived at

$$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le F( c + h ) - F(c) = \int^{ c + h }_c f \le ( f(c) + \epsilon ) \cdot h$$ ... ... ?Peter================================================================================

It may help readers of the above post to have access to B&S's definition of the indefinite integral of $$f$$ ... ... so I am providing the same ... ... as follows:View attachment 7326
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading "Introduction to Real Analysis" (Fourth Edition) by Robert G Bartle and Donald R Sherbert ...

I am focused on Chapter 7: The Riemann Integral ...

I need help in fully understanding an aspect of the proof of Theorem 7.3.5 ...Theorem 7.3.5 and its proof ... ... read as follows:
In the above proof from Bartle and Sherbert we read the following:

" ... ... Now on the interval $$[c, c + h]$$ the function $$f$$ satisfies inequality (4), so that we have

$$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le F( c + h ) - F(c) = \int^{ c + h }_c f \le ( f(c) + \epsilon ) \cdot h$$

... ... "Can someone please demonstrate rigorously and in detail how Bartle and Sherbert arrived at

$$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le F( c + h ) - F(c) = \int^{ c + h }_c f \le ( f(c) + \epsilon ) \cdot h$$ ... ... ?Peter================================================================================

It may help readers of the above post to have access to B&S's definition of the indefinite integral of $$f$$ ... ... so I am providing the same ... ... as follows:
On reflection I think that the explanation for my question is as follows:

Since $$f(c) - \epsilon$$ is less than $$f(x)$$ for all $$x$$ in $$c \le x \lt c + h$$ ... ... ... we have that $$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le \int^{ c + h }_c f$$ ... ...Is that basically the correct explanation ... ... ?Peter
 
Peter said:
On reflection I think that the explanation for my question is as follows:

Since $$f(c) - \epsilon$$ is less than $$f(x)$$ for all $$x$$ in $$c \le x \lt c + h$$ ... ... ... we have that $$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le \int^{ c + h }_c f$$ ... ...Is that basically the correct explanation ... ... ?
Yes. :)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K