Riemann integrals and step functions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that if a function f is Riemann integrable on an interval [a,b], there exist step functions L(x) and U(x) such that L(x) ≤ f(x) ≤ U(x) and the integral of their difference is less than any given ε > 0. The proof leverages Theorem 8.16, which guarantees the existence of a partition π of [a,b] that satisfies the condition. The author defines L(x) as the infimum and U(x) as the supremum of f over each subinterval, demonstrating that the integral of the difference between U(x) and L(x) is less than ε, thus confirming the statement.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Riemann integrability
  • Familiarity with Theorem 8.16 regarding partitions
  • Knowledge of step functions and their properties
  • Basic integration techniques and notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Theorem 8.16 in greater detail
  • Explore the properties and applications of step functions in integration
  • Learn about the converse of the Riemann integrability theorem
  • Investigate the relationship between Riemann and Lebesgue integrals
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and researchers focusing on real analysis, particularly those studying Riemann integrability and its applications in calculus.

GridironCPJ
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Prove the following:

If f is Riemann integrable on an interval [a,b], show that ∀ε>0, there are a pair of step functions
L(x)≤f(x)≤U(x)
s.t.
∫_a^b▒(U(x)-L(x))dx<ε

My proof:

Since f is Riemann integrable on [a,b] then, by Theorem 8.16, ∀ε>0, there is at least one partition π of the interval [a,b] s.t.
∑_(k=1)^n▒〖ωf([x_(k-1),x_k ])(x_k-x_(k-1))〗<ε
Let L(x)=inf⁡〖f(x)〗 ∀x∈[x_(k-1),x_k] and let U(x)=sup⁡〖f(x)〗 ∀x∈[x_(k-1),x_k]. Note that
ωf([x_(k-1),x_k ])(x_k-x_(k-1) )=U(x)-L(x)
so

∑_(k=1)^n▒〖(U(x)-L(x))(x_k-x_(k-1))〗<ε
|∑_(k=1)^n▒〖(U(x)-L(x))(x_k-x_(k-1))〗-0|<ε
Hence,
∫_a^b▒(U(x)-L(x))dx<ε
Which is precisely the statement needed to be proven. ∎
I feel like my proof makes sense, but I would like to get some feedback to see if anyone sees any flaws in my logic. Note that I essentially explained the details of Theorem 8.16 in my proof. Also, ignore the ▒'s, as they were created when copying and pasting from Word.
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K