MHB Riemann Integration ... Existence Result .... Browder, Theorem 5.12 ....

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the inclusion of "+1" in the expression used in the proof of Theorem 5.12 from Andrew Browder's book on Riemann integration. The "+1" ensures that the inequality holds for all cases, particularly when f(b) is less than f(a), thus guaranteeing that the chosen integer n is sufficiently large. Without the "+1," the inequality might not be satisfied if f(b) < f(a). This addition helps to account for potential gaps in the interval and ensures that the partition meets the required conditions for the proof. The clarification emphasizes the importance of this adjustment in achieving the desired result in the theorem's proof.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew Browder's book: "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" ... ...

I am currently reading Chapter 5: The Riemann Integral and am currently focused on Section 5.2 Existence Results ... ...

I need some help in understanding the proof of Theorem 5.12 ...Theorem 5.12 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 9501In the above proof by Andrew Browder we read the following:

" ... ... [For instance, one can choose a positive integer $$n$$ such that $$n \gt [f(b) - f(a) + 1](b - a) / \epsilon$$ ... ... "My question is as follows:

Why does Browder have $$+1$$ in the expression $$[f(b) - f(a) + 1](b - a) / \epsilon$$ ... ... ?Surely $$[f(b) - f(a)](b - a) / \epsilon$$ will do fine ... since ...

$$\mu ( \pi ) = (b - a)/ n$$

and so

$$\mu ( \pi ) [f(b) - f(a)] = [f(b) - f(a)] (b - a)/ n \lt \epsilon$$ ...

... so we only need ...

$$n \gt [f(b) - f(a)](b - a) / \epsilon$$

Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Browder ... Theorem 5.12 .png
    Browder ... Theorem 5.12 .png
    28 KB · Views: 168
Physics news on Phys.org
The +1 in the expression [f(b) - f(a) + 1](b - a) / \epsilon is used to ensure that the inequality holds in all cases. If we only use [f(b) - f(a)](b - a) / \epsilon, we can only guarantee that the inequality will hold if f(b) ≥ f(a). However, if f(b) < f(a) then we can't guarantee that the inequality will hold. The +1 ensures that the inequality holds for any value of f(b) and f(a).
 


Hi Peter,

I can definitely understand your confusion with the +1 in the expression. Here's my understanding of it:

In this proof, Browder is trying to show that for any given \epsilon \gt 0, there exists a partition \pi of [a,b] such that \mu(\pi)[f(b) - f(a)] \lt \epsilon. In order to do this, he chooses a positive integer n such that n \gt [f(b) - f(a) + 1](b - a) / \epsilon.

The reason for the +1 is because Browder wants to make sure that the value of n is large enough to guarantee that \mu(\pi)[f(b) - f(a)] is less than \epsilon. By adding 1 to [f(b) - f(a)], he is ensuring that n is large enough to cover any potential "gaps" in the interval [f(b) - f(a), \epsilon].

In other words, if we only have n \gt [f(b) - f(a)](b - a) / \epsilon, there is a possibility that the value of n may not be large enough to cover all possible values within the interval [f(b) - f(a), \epsilon]. By adding 1, we are ensuring that n is large enough to cover all possible values within this interval.

I hope this helps clarify the use of +1 in the expression. Let me know if you have any further questions.

 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K