How to prove that ##M_i =x_i## in this upper Darboux sum problem?

  • #1
735
191

Homework Statement:

We have a function ##f:[0,1] \mapsto \mathbb R## such that
$$
f(x)= \begin{cases}
x& \text{if x is rational} \\
0 & \text{if x is irrational} \\
\end{cases}
$$

Relevant Equations:

Upper Darboux sum is
$$
U(f,P) = \sum_{i}^{n} M_i (x_i - x_{i-1})
$$
We're given a function which is defined as :
$$
f:[0,1] \mapsto \mathbb R\\

f(x)= \begin{cases}
x& \text{if x is rational} \\
0 & \text{if x is irrational} \\
\end{cases}
$$
Let ##M_i = sup \{f(x) : x \in [x_{i-1}, x_i]\}##. Then for a partition ##P= \{x_0, x_1 , \cdots , x_n\}## we define the upper Darboux sum as
$$
U(f,P) = \sum_{i}^{n} M_i (x_i - x_{i-1})
$$
Now, I need your help in showing that ##M_i = x_i## for any interval ##[x_{i-1}, x_i]##. Please don't give complete solution, I want to learn it, I'm a beginner in Real Analysis.

Thank you!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Infrared
Science Advisor
Gold Member
774
394
You want to show that ##x_i## is the least upper bound for ##f## on the interval ##[x_{i-1},x_i].## This means you should check that:

1) ##x_i## is an upper bound for ##f## on ##[x_{i-1},x_i]##.

2) If ##y<x_i##, then ##y## is not an upper bound for ##f## on ##[x_{i-1},x_i]##.

Item 1 should be apparent from the definition of ##f##. To show 2, you'll want to use the density of ##\mathbb{Q}## in ##\mathbb{R}.##
 
  • #3
735
191
show 2, you'll want to use the density of ##\mathbb Q## in ##\mathbb R##
Okay, so we have the Theorem that between any two real numbers we can always find a rational number..

So, from the above Theorem can we conclude that “for any ##\epsilon## we can always find a rational number ##X## such that ##x_i - X \lt \epsilon##” ?
 
  • #4
Infrared
Science Advisor
Gold Member
774
394
That's true, but probably not what you mean (as written, it would still be true with "integer" instead of "rational number").

And how do you want to use this to solve your question?
 
  • #5
735
191
And how do you want to use this to solve your question?
We can conclude that there exist a rational number within any ##\epsilon## of ##x_i## and hence ##M_i= x_i-\epsilon ##.
 
  • #6
Infrared
Science Advisor
Gold Member
774
394
##M_i## should not depend on ##\varepsilon##. There is no ##\varepsilon## in the definition ##M_i=\sup\{f(x):x\in [x_{i-1},x_i]\}.##
 
  • Like
Likes Adesh
  • #7
735
191
##M_i## should not depend on ##\varepsilon##. There is no ##\varepsilon## in the definition ##M_i=\sup\{f(x):x\in [x_{i-1},x_i]\}.##
Yes I understand that (I mean I noticed it after you pointed it out). Then how can I write what “I know”, I know that I can find a rational number as close to ##x_i## as I want, but how to write ##M_i## with this extra information?
 
  • #8
Infrared
Science Advisor
Gold Member
774
394
2) If ##y<x_i##, then ##y## is not an upper bound for ##f## on ##[x_{i-1},x_i]##.
You want to show this. Showing that ##y## is not an upper bound means finding an element ##x\in[x_{i-1},x_i]## such that ##f(x)>y \ (=x_i)##. How can you do this?
 
  • #9
735
191
You want to show this. Showing that ##y## is not an upper bound means finding an element ##x\in[x_{i-1},x_i]## such that ##f(x)>y \ (=x_i)##. How can you do this?
Given that ##y\lt x_i## implies that ##x_i - y \lt \epsilon’## but between any interval of real numbers we can always find a rational number, hence there exist a rational number in the interval ##[y, x_i]## and let that number be ##x##, then we’ve ##f(x) \gt f(y)\implies x \gt y## (I assumed y to be rational). And therefore, ##y## is not an upper bound.
 
  • #10
Infrared
Science Advisor
Gold Member
774
394
This is better, but I don't know why you have an ##\epsilon'## floating around. Doesn't density of ##\mathbb{Q}## immediately imply that there is a rational number in ##[y,x_i]?## You should also do something like using the interval ##[\text{max}(0,y),x_i]## instead so that you're sure the rational you pick is indeed in ##[0,1]##!

So, ##x_i## is an upper bound, and there is no smaller upper bound. Hence it is the least upper bound.
 
  • Like
Likes STEMucator and Adesh
  • #11
735
191
This is better, but I don't know why you have an ##\epsilon'## floating around. Doesn't density of ##\mathbb{Q}## immediately imply that there is a rational number in ##[y,x_i]?## You should also do something like using the interval ##[\text{max}(0,y),x_i]## instead so that you're sure the rational you pick is indeed in ##[0,1]##!

So, ##x_i## is an upper bound, and there is no smaller lower bound. Hence it is the least upper bound.
Thank you so much for helping me.
 
  • Like
Likes Infrared

Related Threads on How to prove that ##M_i =x_i## in this upper Darboux sum problem?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
572
Replies
0
Views
6K
Replies
0
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
679
Replies
3
Views
915
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
934
Top