MHB Integrable Function on $[0,1]$: Proving a Limit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krizalid1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Limit
AI Thread Summary
For any integrable function on the interval [0,1], it is proven that the limit of the expression involving the sum and integral converges to the integral of (1-x)f(x) over [0,1]. The proof involves manipulating the sum by expressing n-k as a sum and reversing the order of summation. By defining F(x) as the integral of f from 0 to x, the limit is shown to approach zero as n approaches infinity. The Riemann sum converges to the integral of F(x), and integrating by parts confirms the relationship between the limits and the integral of (1-x)f(x). Thus, the limit is established as equal to the desired integral.
Krizalid1
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
For any integrable function on $[0,1]$ prove that $\displaystyle \mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n - 1} {(n - k)\int_{\frac{k}{n}}^{\frac{{k + 1}}{n}} {f(x)\,dx} } = \int_0^1 {(1 - x)f(x)\,dx} .$
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
This one is pretty tricky, so write $n-k$ as a sum and reverse the order of the sums.
 
Krizalid said:
This one is pretty tricky, so write $n-k$ as a sum and reverse the order of the sums.

i couldn't imagine ,how to solve this
 
Give it a try! It's a nice problem!
 
Krizalid said:
For any integrable function on $[0,1]$ prove that $\displaystyle \mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n - 1} {(n - k)\int_{\frac{k}{n}}^{\frac{{k + 1}}{n}} {f(x)\,dx} } = \int_0^1 {(1 - x)f(x)\,dx} .$
[sp]Let $$F(x) = \int_0^xf(t)\,dt.$$ Then $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} (n - k)\int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n}\!\!\! f(x)\,dx = \frac1n \sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} (n-k)\bigl(F(\tfrac{k+1}n\bigr) - F\bigl(\tfrac kn\bigr)\bigr) = \frac1n \sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} (n-k)F(\tfrac{k+1}n\bigr) - \frac1n \sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1}(n-k) F\bigl(\tfrac kn\bigr).$$ The first of those two sums is $$\sum_{j = 0}^{n - 1} (n-j)F(\tfrac{j+1}n\bigr) = \sum_{k=1}^{n} (n-k+1)F(\tfrac{k}n\bigr) = F(1) - F(0) + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} (n-k+1)F(\tfrac{k}n\bigr)$$ (first writing $j$ instead of $k$, and then letting $k=j+1$). Therefore $$\begin{aligned}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} (n - k)\int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n}\!\!\! f(x)\,dx &= \frac1n\Bigl(F(1) - F(0) + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} (n-k+1)F(\tfrac{k}n\bigr)\Bigr) - \frac1n \sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1}(n-k) F\bigl(\tfrac kn\bigr) \\ &= \frac{F(1)}n + \frac1n\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}F(\tfrac{k}n\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ As $n\to\infty$, $F(1)/n\to0$ and the Riemann sum $$\frac1n\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}F(\tfrac{k}n\bigr)$$ converges to $$\int_0^1F(x)\,dx.$$ But (integrating by parts) $$\int_0^1 {(1 - x)f(x)\,dx} = \Bigl[(1-x)F(x)\Bigr]_0^1 + \int_0^1F(x)\,dx = \int_0^1F(x)\,dx.$$ Put those results together to see that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n \sum_{k=0}^n (n-k) \int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n}\!\!\!f(x)\,dx = \int_0^1(1-x)f(x)\,dx.$$[/sp]
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top