Prove Integrability of f(x)| 0 to 1 Inequality

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FallArk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrability
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integrability of the function defined piecewise on the interval [0, 1], where it takes the form \(f(x) = 1+x\) for rational \(x\) and \(f(x) = 1-x\) for irrational \(x\). Participants explore the criteria for integrability, specifically through the lens of Riemann sums and partitions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the function is not integrable on [0, 1] and express uncertainty about how to begin the proof.
  • There is discussion about using Riemann sums, with participants attempting to evaluate lower and upper sums based on rational and irrational points.
  • Participants suggest that the standard partition involves dividing the interval into equally sized segments, leading to specific bounds for the sums.
  • One participant notes that the lower sum could be bounded above by 1 and the upper sum by 1+x, raising questions about the limits of these sums.
  • There is a suggestion that the limits of the lower and upper sums will yield different results, indicating non-integrability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the approach to proving integrability, with some agreeing on the use of Riemann sums while others question the correctness of their evaluations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the integrability of the function.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various criteria for integrability, such as Riemann's Criterion and Null Partitions Criterion, but do not reach a consensus on their application to this specific function. There is also uncertainty about the evaluation of the sums and their limits.

FallArk
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Prove that the function
$$f(x) = 1+x, 0 \le x \le 1$$, x rational
$$f(x) = 1-x, 0 \le x \le 1$$, x irrational (they are one function, I just don't know how to use the LATEX code properly)
is not integrable on $$[0,1]$$
I don't know where to start, I tried to evalute the lower and upper Riemann sum but it does not seem to work.
I have learned some of the criteria for integrability such as Riemann's Criterion, Common Limit Criterion and Null Partitions Criterion. However, I am not familiar with them enough to use it. Any help?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
FallArk said:
Prove that the function
$$f(x) = 1+x, 0 \le x \le 1$$, x rational
$$f(x) = 1-x, 0 \le x \le 1$$, x irrational (they are one function, I just don't know how to use the LATEX code properly)
is not integrable on $$[0,1]$$
I don't know where to start, I tried to evalute the lower and upper Riemann sum but it does not seem to work.
I have learned some of the criteria for integrability such as Riemann's Criterion, Common Limit Criterion and Null Partitions Criterion. However, I am not familiar with them enough to use it. Any help?

Hey FallArk,

The $\LaTeX$ code would be as follows (click Reply With Quote to see what it looks like):
$$
f(x) =
\begin{cases}
1+x, & 0 \le x \le 1, & x \text{ rational} \\
1-x, & 0 \le x \le 1, & x \text{ irrational}
\end{cases}
$$
Now let's pick the standard partition.
And let's try to find an upper bound for the lower Riemann sum with points that are irrational.
Similarly let's find a lower bound for the upper Riemann sum with points that are rational.
What are their limits? (Wondering)
 
What would be the standard partition? $$P= \left\{[{x}_{0},{x}_{1}],...,[{x}_{i-1},{x}_{i}],...,[{x}_{n-1},{x}_{n}]\right\}$$ ?
I think 1-x where x is irrational would be the lower sum, and it should be bounded above by 1, since 0 is not irrational. And 1+x would be the upper sum bounded by 1 as well. :confused:
 
FallArk said:
What would be the standard partition? $$P= \left\{[{x}_{0},{x}_{1}],...,[{x}_{i-1},{x}_{i}],...,[{x}_{n-1},{x}_{n}]\right\}$$ ?
I think 1-x where x is irrational would be the lower sum, and it should be bounded above by 1, since 0 is not irrational. And 1+x would be the upper sum bounded by 1 as well. :confused:

The standard partition is where we divide the interval into equally sized intervals:
$$P_n=\left\{[0,\frac 1n], ..., [\frac{n-1}n,1]\right\}$$
In the interval $[\frac {i-1}n, \frac in]$ an upper bound of the corresponding term of the lower sum would be $1-\frac{i}n$... (Thinking)
 
I like Serena said:
The standard partition is where we divide the interval into equally sized intervals:
$$P_n=\left\{[0,\frac 1n], ..., [\frac{n-1}n,1]\right\}$$
In the interval $[\frac {i-1}n, \frac in]$ an upper bound of the corresponding term of the lower sum would be $1-\frac{i}n$... (Thinking)
Then the lower bound of the upper sum would be $$1+\frac{i-1}{n}$$
After that do I simply evaluate the sums?
 
FallArk said:
Then the lower bound of the upper sum would be $$1+\frac{i-1}{n}$$
After that do I simply evaluate the sums?

Yep. (Nod)
 
I like Serena said:
Yep. (Nod)

Like this?
$$\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}L\left(f,{P}_{n}\right) = \lim_{{n}\to{\infty}} \left(1-\frac{i}{n}\right)\cdot\frac{1}{n}$$
 
FallArk said:
Like this?
$$\lim_{{n}\to{\infty}}L\left(f,{P}_{n}\right) = \lim_{{n}\to{\infty}} \left(1-\frac{i}{n}\right)\cdot\frac{1}{n}$$

We need to sum first.
That is only the contribution of the last interval.
 
I like Serena said:
We need to sum first.
That is only the contribution of the last interval.

$$L\left(f,{P}_{n}\right) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(1-\frac{i}{n}\right)\cdot\frac{i}{n}$$
then take the limit
 
  • #10
FallArk said:
$$L\left(f,{P}_{n}\right) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(1-\frac{i}{n}\right)\cdot\frac{i}{n}$$
then take the limit

It should be:
$$L\left(f,{P}_{n}\right) \le \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(1-\frac{i}{n}\right)\cdot\frac{1}{n}$$
and:
$$U\left(f,{P}_{n}\right) \ge \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(1+\frac{i-1}{n}\right)\cdot\frac{1}{n}$$

If we take the limits, we should find that those are different.
Therefore the function is not Riemann integrable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K