Proving that a function is Riemann integrable

  • Thread starter Thread starter Treadstone 71
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Riemann
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the Riemann integrability of a function defined on the interval [0,1], where the function takes the value of a decreasing sequence converging to zero at rational points and zero at irrational points. The context involves using Darboux's approach to integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to show that the difference between the upper and lower sums for a partition is less than a given epsilon. There is an exploration of how the convergence of the sequence a_n to zero might be utilized in bounding the upper sum.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided hints and suggestions regarding the implications of the sequence's convergence, while others have expressed uncertainty about the behavior of the lower sum. There is an acknowledgment of a misunderstanding regarding the values of a_n, which has led to a more favorable situation for the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of not using tagged partitions and are focused on the properties of the function defined in relation to rational and irrational numbers. There is a specific emphasis on the behavior of the sequence a_n and its implications for the integrability proof.

Treadstone 71
Messages
275
Reaction score
0
"Let (r_n) be any list of rational numbers in [0,1]. Let (a_n) be a sequence such that 1>a_1>a_2>...>a_n>... converging to 0. Let f be defined such that

f=0 if x is irrational
=a_n if x is equal to r_x

Prove that f is Riemann integrable."

We are doing integrals from Darboux' approach, so no tagged partitions or whatnot. I have to somehow show that the upper sum L(f,P) and lower sum L(f,P), for some partition P, differ by less than a given e>0.

L(f,P) = 0 for any partition, so |U(f,P) - L(f,P)|=U(f,P). I have no idea how to proceed, because if p is a partition of n equal parts, [tex]U(f,P) \leq \sum_{i=0}^{n}\frac{1}{n}[/tex] which diverges. I am unable to refine the inequality.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1.You need to take advantage of the fact that the [itex]a_n[/itex] converge to zero.
2.You don't know that L(f,P) is going to be 0 since the [itex]a_n[/itex] can be less than zero.

Hint:
If you know that for n>N, a_n < 1/k can you produce an upper bound for U(f,P) as the norm of the partition goes to zero?
 
Last edited:
a_n is a strictly decreasing sequence converging to 0, a_n is therefore never less than 0.

I think I have an idea on how to proceed, regardless.
 
Treadstone 71 said:
a_n is a strictly decreasing sequence converging to 0, a_n is therefore never less than 0.

<opens mouth, switches feet>
Oh, I missed that. It makes things a bit more convenient.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K