Integrability of f(x) on [0,1]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Darth Frodo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrability
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion centers around the integrability of the function f(x) defined on the interval [0,1], where f(x) equals 1 for rational x and 0 for irrational x. Participants explore whether this function is Riemann integrable on the specified interval.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss dividing the interval into sub-intervals and calculating upper and lower sums to analyze integrability. Questions arise regarding the assumptions made about the behavior of the function at rational and irrational points within the intervals.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing examination of the calculations related to upper and lower sums, with some participants suggesting that the function cannot be integrable due to the nature of rational and irrational numbers in any sub-interval. Clarifications are being sought regarding previous assumptions and calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the function's behavior leads to different results for upper and lower sums, which is critical in determining integrability. There is a focus on the implications of taking the limit as n approaches infinity and how it affects the conclusions drawn about the function's integrability.

Darth Frodo
Messages
211
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Let f(x) be defined on [0,1] by

f(x) = 1 if x is rational
f(x) = 0 if x is irrational.

Is f integrable on [0,1]? You may use the fact that between any two rational numbers
there exists an irrational number, and between any two irrational numbers there exists
a rational number.

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



Divide into n sub-intervals.

Δxi=1/n

U(f,Pn) = Ʃ(f(Ui)Δxi) = [itex]\sum(1)(1/n)[/itex] = 1/n
L(f,Pn) = Ʃ[f(li)](Δxi) = [itex]\sum(0)(1/n)[/itex] = 0

As n[itex]\rightarrow[/itex] [itex]\infty[/itex] both U(f,Pn) and L(f,Pn) [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] 0

Therefore [itex]\int f(x)dx[/itex] = 0

Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Darth Frodo said:

Homework Statement


Let f(x) be defined on [0,1] by

f(x) = 1 if x is rational
f(x) = 0 if x is irrational.

Is f integrable on [0,1]? You may use the fact that between any two rational numbers
there exists an irrational number, and between any two irrational numbers there exists
a rational number.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



Divide into n sub-intervals.

Δxi=1/n

U(f,Pn) = Ʃ(f(Ui)Δxi) = [itex]\sum(1)(1/n)[/itex] = 1/n
L(f,Pn) = Ʃ[f(li)](Δxi) = [itex]\sum(0)(1/n)[/itex] = 0

As n[itex]\rightarrow[/itex] [itex]\infty[/itex] both U(f,Pn) and L(f,Pn) [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] 0

Therefore [itex]\int f(x)dx[/itex] = 0

Is this correct?

##f## is most certainly not integrable on any interval ##[0,b]##.

For each sub interval ##[x_{i-1}, x_{i}]## you can always find a rational number ##r \in [x_{i-1}, x_{i}]## with ##f(r) = 0##.

So this tells you something about the lower sum.

We can also find an irrational number ##q \in [x_{i-1}, x_{i}]## such that ##f(q) = 1##.

This tells you something about the upper sum.

Using this you can deduce ##f## is not integrable on any interval ##[0,b]##.
 
Shouldn't it be f(r) = 1 and f(q) = 0?
 
Darth Frodo said:
Shouldn't it be f(r) = 1 and f(q) = 0?

Oh whoops! Yes you're right.

My bad about that, but you see what I was getting at right?
 
No I can't say I do.
 
Darth Frodo said:
No I can't say I do.

Well... let's do the upper sum then as an example.

Since ##f(r) = 1##, you know ##M_i = 1## no matter what sub-interval you choose.

The upper sum is defined as such :

##S_p = \sum M_i Δx_i = \sum 1 Δx_i = b##

Now try doing the lower sum ##s_p##, what do you get?

EDIT : Just for clearness ##M_i = sup\{ f(x) \space | \space x \in [x_{i-1}, x_i] \}##
 
f(q) = 0
mi = 0

sp = ƩmiΔxi = 0
 
Darth Frodo said:
f(q) = 0
mi = 0

sp = ƩmiΔxi = 0

Exactly. So sup(sp) = 0 and inf(Sp) = b.

Since 0 ≠ b, we know that f can't be Riemann integrable on any [0,b].

You can actually generalize it to any [a,b].
 
Ok, Thank you very much. But would you mind telling me what I did wrong in the 1st post? What assumption of mine is incorrect?
 
  • #10
Darth Frodo said:
Ok, Thank you very much. But would you mind telling me what I did wrong in the 1st post? What assumption of mine is incorrect?

You took n to infinity which wasn't what you were supposed to do.

A function is Riemann Integrable on an interval [a,b] if sup(sp) = inf(Sp).
 
  • #11
Darth Frodo said:
Ok, Thank you very much. But would you mind telling me what I did wrong in the 1st post? What assumption of mine is incorrect?

[itex]\displaystyle U(f,P_n)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(1)(1/n)=n(1/n)=1[/itex]
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K