If supremum=infimum, is f Riemann integrable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GVAR717
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Riemann
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions under which a bounded function f on the interval [a,b] is Riemann integrable, specifically focusing on the relationship between the supremum and infimum of the function's sums over partitions of the interval.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of having the supremum equal the infimum and discuss theorems related to Riemann integrability. There is an attempt to clarify the definitions of the Riemann integral and the specific notation used in the problem statement.

Discussion Status

Some participants are providing hints and clarifications regarding the definitions of the Riemann integral, while others are questioning the assumptions made in the original poster's approach. There is an acknowledgment of a potential misunderstanding in the problem setup, and guidance is being offered to help clarify the situation.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of confusion regarding the definitions of the Riemann integral and the notation used, which may affect the understanding of the problem. Additionally, there are references to the use of LaTeX for mathematical expressions, indicating a barrier for some participants in expressing their ideas clearly.

GVAR717
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
This is my first time posting & I am not familiar with how to get all the correct math symbols or how to use Latex, so I did the best I could.

Homework Statement



Suppose f is bounded on [a,b] and there is a partition P* of [a,b] for which S(f,P*)=S(f,P*). Is f Riemann integrable on [a,b]?


Homework Equations



S(f)=sup{S(f,P*): P* is partition of [a,b]}
S(f)=inf{S(f,P*); P* is partition of [a,b]}

The Attempt at a Solution



I know, by a theorem, that S(f)>S(f). I am trying to figure out how to show S(f)<S(f) so that I can say S(f)=S(f). I thought about choosing another partition Pe such that S(f,Pe)-S(f,Pe) would equal some epsilon value, but I don't know what value I should use or where to go next.

If this is the wrong process for this proof, I would love a hint on where to start.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you mean "for which S(f, P*)=S(f)"? If so, hint: consider characteristic function of rationals on [0,1].
 
losiu99 said:
Did you mean "for which S(f, P*)=S(f)"? If so, hint: consider characteristic function of rationals on [0,1].

No, I am trying to use a theorem that says a function is Riemann integrable if the supremum equals the infimimum: S(f)=S(f)
 
Are you using Darboux definition of Riemann integral, I mean:
[tex]\underline{S}(f, P^*)=\sum m_i \Delta x_i[/tex]
[tex]\overline{S}(f, P^*)=\sum M_i \Delta x_i[/tex]
where
[tex]m_i = \inf \{f(x): x_{i-1}\leq x \leq x_i\}[/tex]
[tex]M_i = \sup \{f(x): x_{i-1}\leq x \leq x_i\}[/tex]
or the other popular one, where
[tex]S(f, P^*)=\sum f(t_i)\Delta x_i[/tex]
for [tex]x_{i-1}\leq t_i \leq x_i[/tex]
?
Sorry for such question, but I'm confused. Statement like "S(f, P*)=S(f, P*)" suggests the first (Darboux) definition, while "Relevant Equations" section suggests the second (at least for me). Or maybe it's yet another definition? Again, sorry to ask, but when I find out which definition you are using, I think I will be able to help.
 
losiu99 said:
Are you using Darboux definition of Riemann integral, I mean:
[tex]\underline{S}(f, P^*)=\sum m_i \Delta x_i[/tex]
[tex]\overline{S}(f, P^*)=\sum M_i \Delta x_i[/tex]
where
[tex]m_i = \inf \{f(x): x_{i-1}\leq x \leq x_i\}[/tex]
[tex]M_i = \sup \{f(x): x_{i-1}\leq x \leq x_i\}[/tex]
or the other popular one, where
[tex]S(f, P^*)=\sum f(t_i)\Delta x_i[/tex]
for [tex]x_{i-1}\leq t_i \leq x_i[/tex]
?
Sorry for such question, but I'm confused. Statement like "S(f, P*)=S(f, P*)" suggests the first (Darboux) definition, while "Relevant Equations" section suggests the second (at least for me). Or maybe it's yet another definition? Again, sorry to ask, but when I find out which definition you are using, I think I will be able to help.

It's the first one with the m's.

By the way, how do you get the math symbols? I don't have Latex.
 
OMG. I just realized that I was making this problem harder than it is.

I can just say that [tex]\underline{S}(f, P^*)-[tex]\overline{S}(f, P^*)=0, which is less than epsilon.[/tex][/tex]
 
Yes, precisely. Well done :ok: As for the math symbols, Latex is an inbuild board feature, you don't need to have it on your computer. Just use [ tex ] [ /tex ] tags around your Latex input. If you're unsure about that, ask or quote my post to see the raw input of my previous messages.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
917
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K