How to prove that ##f## is integrable given that ##g## is integrable?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the integrability of a function ##f## given that another function ##g## is integrable. Participants explore the implications of changing values of ##f## at finitely many points and how this affects its integrability, focusing on definitions and characterizations of Riemann integrability.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that if ##f## agrees with the integrable function ##g## on all but finitely many points, then ##f## should also be integrable.
  • Others emphasize the importance of definitions of Riemann integrability and suggest that the proof may depend on which definition is used.
  • One participant proposes that changing the value of ##f## at a single point should not affect its integrability, provided the new value remains within the bounds defined by the partition.
  • Another participant questions the assumption that the new value can be taken within the bounds, providing a counterexample where the new value exceeds the bounds.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of altering ##f## at a point and suggest breaking the interval into subintervals to analyze the impact on Darboux sums.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity and correctness of the proof attempts, with suggestions for distinguishing cases based on where the change occurs within the partition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the impact of changing values of ##f## on its integrability. There is no consensus on the correctness of the proof attempts or the assumptions made regarding the bounds of ##f## after alteration.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the need for precise definitions and characterizations of integrability, as well as the importance of distinguishing between different cases in proofs. There are unresolved questions about the validity of certain assumptions regarding the bounds of the function after changes are made.

  • #31
There is a more elegant proof.

Notation-wise, you will confuse the reader and yourself if you have x_i being both the points at which f(x) \neq g(x) and the points of an arbitrary partition. So I will call the former \{\xi_k : k = 1, \dots, n\}.

We can write f(x) = g(x) + \sum_{k=1}^n (f(\xi_k) - g(\xi_k)) h_k(x) where <br /> h_k : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R} : x \mapsto \begin{cases} 0 &amp; x \neq \xi_k \\ 1 &amp; x = \xi_k.\end{cases} It suffices to show that each h_k is (Darboux) integrable, since a linear combination of finitely many (Darboux) integrable functions is (Darboux) integrable. (The one with the upper and lower sums being arbitrarily close to each other is Darboux integrability; it is however completely equivalent to Riemann integrability.)

Let \epsilon &gt; 0 and D = \{x_0 = a, \dots, x_m = b\} a partition of [a.b] with \|D\| = \max\{\delta_i = x_i - x_{i-1}, i = 1, \dots, m\} &lt; \frac12 \epsilon. Then there exists a minimal 1 \leq i_1\leq m such that x_{i_1-1} \leq \xi_k \leq x_{i_1}. We then have that M_i - m_i = 0 for every i except for i_1 and, if x_{i_1} = \xi_k and i_1 &lt; m, also i_1+1. For these intervals M_i - m_i = 1. Thus (M_i - m_i)\delta_i = 0 except for at most two intervals for which (M_i - m_i)\delta_i = \delta_i \leq \|D\|. Thus <br /> U(h_k,D) - L(h_k,D) \leq 2\|D\| &lt; \epsilon.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi, member 587159 and Adesh

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K