So I've got my exam of analysis tomorrow, but there's this piece of improper integrals I just don't get... (I'll paraphrase the definition we saw into english)(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

So if f is not necessarily Rieman-integrable over ]a,b[ (a and b can be (negative) infinity), but for all c,d with a<c<d<b [tex]\int_c^d f[/tex] exists and the limit of this integral for [tex]c \to a, d \to b[/tex] exists independent of how you approach a and b (relatively to each other), then we call f improperly integrable over ]a,b[.

Now how can you see that if f is impr. int. over ]a,b[, that it is also impr. int. over ]a,c] and [c,b[ for a certain c in ]a,b[? It was noted in my papers as "evident", but I have no clue of how to prove it (and believe me, I've tried...). The main problem is (with the essence sketched) that with "x + y converges" given, that I have to proof x and y converge seperately. Obviously this is not true in all contextx, but apparently for integrals it is. I know it depends on the fact that in the definition you say the convergence to a limit should be independent of any rows c_n, d_n, but I don't know how to milk that...

(I see other courses sometimes define and improper integral over ]a,b[ as actually the sum of improper integrals over ]a,c] and [c,b[ and then surely it is evident, but as my course does not take that road, I'd like to be able to show it's equivalent...)

Thank you very much, I'm clueless.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Really stuck: Improper Integrals

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**