Proving Riemann Integrability of g∘f for Linear Functions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the Riemann integrability of the composition of two functions, specifically g∘f, where f is a linear function defined as f(x) = ax + b and g is Riemann integrable. The proof demonstrates that if g is Riemann integrable on [c,d], then g∘f is also Riemann integrable on [a,b]. The argument relies on the properties of partitions and the behavior of linear functions, concluding that the difference between the upper and lower sums of g∘f can be made arbitrarily small, thus confirming its integrability.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Riemann integrability
  • Familiarity with linear functions and their properties
  • Knowledge of partitions and upper/lower sums
  • Basic concepts of limits and epsilon-delta arguments
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Riemann integrable functions
  • Explore the implications of linear transformations on integrability
  • Learn about the relationship between continuity and Riemann integrability
  • Investigate counterexamples for non-linear functions and their integrability
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, educators teaching calculus concepts, and anyone interested in the properties of integrable functions.

O_o
Messages
32
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Prove or give a counter example of the following statement:

If [itex]f: [a,b] \to [c,d][/itex] is linear and [itex]g:[c,d] \to \mathbb{R}[/itex] is Riemann integrable then [itex]g \circ f[/itex] is Riemann integrable

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm going to attempt to prove the statement is true.

Let [itex]f(x) = ax + b[/itex]. I'm going to assume [itex]a > 0[/itex] and do a similar proof for [itex]a < 0[/itex] if this one is alright.

Fix [itex]n \in \mathbb{N}[/itex] such that [itex]\frac{1}{n} \leq a[/itex].

Fix [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex]

Since g is Riemann integrable [itex]\exists P = \{y_0, y_1, ..., y_n\}[/itex] such that [itex]U(g,P) - L(g,P) \lt \frac{\epsilon}{n}[/itex]. Where [itex]P[/itex] is a partition of [itex][c,d][/itex].

Let [itex]Q = \{x_0, x_1, ..., x_n\}[/itex] where [itex]x_i = \frac{y_i - b}{a}[/itex]. Since [itex]f(x)[/itex] is strictly increasing, [itex]x \in [x_{i-1}, x_i] \implies f(x) \in [y_{i-1}, y_i][/itex].

This means [itex]M_i = \sup\{ g(y): y \in [y_{i-1}, y_i]\} = \sup\{g(f(x)): x \in [x_{i-1}, x_i]\}[/itex] and likewise for the infimum over the interval, which I will label [itex]m_i[/itex].
[tex]\implies \\ U(g \circ f ,Q) - L(g \circ f ,Q) = \sum_{i=1}^n \left(M_i - m_i\right) (x_i - x_{i-1}) \\<br /> = \sum_{i=1}^n \left(M_i - m_i\right) \frac{(y_i - y_{i-1})}{a} \\<br /> \leq \sum_{i=1}^n \left(M_i - m_i\right) (y_i - y_{i-1}) n \\<br /> = n \left(U(g,P) - L(g,P)\right) \\<br /> \leq n \frac{\epsilon}{n} = \epsilon[/tex]

I was hoping someone could confirm my reasoning is okay or point out a place I made a mistake. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks like a solid argument to me.
 
Cheers. Thanks for taking the time to read it over.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
2K