Prove Integrability of a Discontinuous Function

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
6 replies · 5K views
Lazerlike42
Messages
20
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let f(x)= { 1 if x=[tex]\frac{1}{n}[/tex] for some n[tex]\in[/tex] the natural numbers,
or 0 otherwise}

Prove f is integrable on [0,1], and evaluate the integral.

Homework Equations



This is using Riemann Integrability. I know that the method of providing the solution is supposed to be by application of the following theorem:

"A bounded function f is integrable on [a,b] if and only if [tex]\forall \epsilon > 0[/tex], there is a partition [tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex] of [a,b] where U(f, [tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex]) - L(f,[tex]P_{\epsilon} < \epsilon[/tex]"

U([tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex]) and L([tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex]) are of course the upper and lower sums.

The Attempt at a Solution



I know that L([tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex]) is 0 everywhere, because for any sub-interval no matter how small there is some value of x where x /= [tex]\frac{1}{n}[/tex]. I also know that the integral must equal 0, as the lower and upper sums must be equal in an integrable function.

What I am supposed to do is to find some partition of [a,b] where the upper sum is less than epsilon, but I can't figure out how to do that.

Given an epsilon, if I select some x0 where x0=[tex]\frac{1}{m}[/tex] for some m and x0 < [tex]\epsilon[/tex], then it follows that the upper sum over [0,x0] < [tex]\epsilon[/tex]. The issue is then the upper sum on [x0, 1].

I have also noticed this fact: Suppose my x0=[tex]\frac{1}{500}[/tex]. Then if I move up to [tex]\frac{2}{500}[/tex], that's actually [tex]\frac{1}{250}[/tex]. Similarly, [tex]\frac{4}{500}=\frac{1}{125}[/tex], [tex]\frac{5}{500}=\frac{1}{100}[/tex], and [tex]\frac{10}{500}={\frac{1}{50}[/tex]. That means that between [tex]\frac{2}{500}[/tex] and [tex]\frac{1}{50}[/tex], there are only 4 values equal to some [tex]\frac{1}{n}[/tex]. The upper sum over that would then be simply 4 * [tex]\frac{1}{500}[/tex]. Somewhere in all of that, I feel like there is a way to partition [x0, 1] so that it's less than a given epsilon, but I can't figure it out.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, here is the solution I came up with. Any comments are appreciated.

By the given theorem, a bounded function f is integrable on [a,b] if and only if [tex]\forall \epsilon > 0 \exists[/tex] some partition [tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex] of [a,b] such that [tex]U(f,P_{\epsilon})-L(f,P_{\epsilon}) < \epsilon[/tex].


Clearly the function f(x) is bounded, having only two possible values: 0 and 1.


So Consider [tex]L(f,P_{\epsilon})[/tex] for an arbitrary partition. Because the irrationals are dense on [tex]\Re[/tex], for any sub-interval [tex][x_{k},x_{k-1}] \exists x_{0}[/tex] such that [tex]x_{0}\neq\frac{1}{n}[/tex] for any n[tex]\in[/tex] the naturals. Therefore, the [tex]L(f,P_{\epsilon})=0 \forall\epsilon[/tex]


Then by the theorem, f is integrable if [tex]\forall \epsilon >0 \exists[/tex] a partition [tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex] such that [tex]U(f,P_{\epsilon}) < \epsilon[/tex]



Choose some [tex]x_{1}[/tex]such that [tex]x_{1}=\frac{1}{m}[/tex] for some [tex]m\in[/tex] the naturals and [tex]x_{1} < \frac{\epsilon}{2}[/tex]. We must produce a partition [tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex] such that [tex]U(f,P_{\epsilon}) < \epsilon[/tex]. For now, consider [tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex] only over the interval [0,x1], and define [tex]P_{\epsilon}=[/tex]{[tex]{0,x_{1}[/tex]}. On [0,x1], [tex]U(f,P_{\epsilon})=1(x_{1}-0)=x_{1}[/tex]

Now consider [x1,1]. In [x1,1] there are only m numbers of the form [tex]\frac{1}{n}[/tex] for some n: x1 (which is, as we chose it, [tex]\frac{1}{m}[/tex]), [tex]\frac{1}{m-1}[/tex], [tex]\frac{1}{m-2}[/tex]...1. Define [tex]P_{\epsilon}[/tex] over [x1,1] so as to satisfy the property that each number of the form [tex]\frac{1}{n}[/tex] (call them [tex]\frac{1}{n_{k}}[/tex]) is in a subinterval as follows:

[[tex]\frac{1}{n_{k}}-\frac{1}{2m^{2}}, \frac{1}{n_{k}}+\frac{1}{2m^{2}}[/tex]] (except for x1 and 1, the intervals for which need be defined only on the right and left sides, respectively). So for example, if x1=[tex]\frac{1}{5}[/tex], ensure that [tex]\frac{1}{4}[/tex] is in the sub-interval [0.23,0.27].

More specifically, [tex]P_{\epsilon}=[/tex]{[tex]0, x_{1}, \frac{1+m}{m^{2}}, \frac{1}{m-1}-\frac{1}{2m^{2}},\frac{1}{m-1}+\frac{1}{2m^{2}},\frac{1}{m-2}-\frac{1}{2m^{2}}...1-\frac{1}{2m^{2}},1[/tex]}

Then over [x1,1], [tex]U(f,P_{\epsilon})[/tex]=

[tex]1( \frac{1+m}{m^{2}}-\frac{1}{m})+0(\frac{1}{m-1}-\frac{1}{2m^{2}}-[ \frac{1+m}{m^{2}}])+1(\frac{1}{m-1}+\frac{1}{2m^{2}}-[\frac{1}{m-1}-\frac{1}{2m^{2}}])+0(\frac{1}{m-2}-\frac{1}{2m^{2}}-[\frac{1}{m-1}+\frac{1}{2m^{2}}]...+1(1-[1-\frac{1}{2,^{2}}])[/tex]

=[tex]\frac{1}{2m^{2}}+\frac{1}{m^{2}}+\frac{1}{m^{2}}+...+\frac{1}{2m^{2}}[/tex]

[tex]=(m-1)(\frac{1}{m^{2}})=\frac{1}{m}-\frac{1}{m^{2}} = x_{1}-\frac{1}{m^{2}}[/tex]

[tex]<x_{1}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}[/tex]

Also, over [0,x1], [tex]U(f,P_{\epsilon}) = x_{1} < \frac{\epsilon}{2}[/tex], as we saw above.

Then [tex]U(f,P_{\epsilon})[/tex] over [0,1]=[tex]U(f,P_{\epsilon})[/tex] over [0,x1]+[tex]U(f,P_{\epsilon})[/tex] over [x1,1]

[tex]<\frac{\epsilon}{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}[/tex]
[tex]<\epsilon[/tex]

Therefore, f is integrable over [0,1]
 
Dick, I saw your hint when I had just finished posting my solution. Thanks! It looks like I had the same general idea as you hinted at, but I'm not sure if what I did is precisely the same.
 
It's way simpler than you think, I think. Just pick a value of M based on epsilon. You don't need stuff like the density of irrationals. Sorry, but I can't read your post. Too tired.
 
Dick said:
It's way simpler than you think, I think. Just pick a value of M based on epsilon. You don't need stuff like the density of irrationals. Sorry, but I can't read your post. Too tired.

That's ok. I'm satisfied with what I've got so far... I see what you're saying. There are obviously a few ways to do it (I can think of a couple of others right now which involve approaching it from other angles, like countability), but the professor gave us a hint and I based my work off of that... I'm also too tired to bother thinking about whether your hint fits in with hers, but I'll take another look in the morning.