Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Rudin Reference

  1. Oct 7, 2008 #1
    Hello,


    I was wondering where I can find a proof to the following theorem:

    If F is differentiable at every pt. of [a,b] and if F' is lebesque on [a,b] then

    F(x) = int(f,dt,a,x) a<=x<=b.


    And the converse.


    He gives the theorem are page 324 and a reference in his bibliography. I was wondering where I detailed proof for this theorem.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 7, 2008 #2

    morphism

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    He proves that in his Real & Complex Analysis book. It's Theorem 8.21 on page 169 of the first edition.
     
  4. Oct 7, 2008 #3
    Thank you dearly.
     
  5. Oct 8, 2008 #4
    Hey morphism,

    do you know where I can find the proofs for the theorems 11.23 (a), (d), (e), (f), 11.24(b), 11.26, 11.27, 11.29, and 11.32 extended to Lebesgue integrals of complex functions?
     
  6. Oct 9, 2008 #5

    morphism

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Have you tried to prove them yourself? They easily follow from their real-valued analogues.
     
  7. Nov 14, 2008 #6
    He just gives the converse to

    If F is differentiable at every pt. of [a,b] and if F' is lebesque on [a,b] then

    F(x) = int(f,dt,a,x) a<=x<=b.

    Where can I find the proof for this?
     
  8. Nov 14, 2008 #7
    Sorry, the actual theorem is:

    If f in L on [a,b] and F(x)=int(f,t,a,x) (a<=x<=b) then F'(x)=f(x) almost everywhere on [a,b].

    and he uses strictly eveywhere for continuity, why is this>
     
  9. Nov 15, 2008 #8

    morphism

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I'm not sure that I understand what it is you're asking.

    Like I said, this is in one of his other books (with your typos corrected!), Real and Complex Analysis.

    Where is this from? And continuity of what is being used?
     
  10. Nov 15, 2008 #9
    It was from baby rudin on page 324. I can only find the proof for the converse in Real and Complex Analysis.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Rudin Reference
  1. Rudin 1.21 (Replies: 3)

  2. Simple Rudin (Replies: 8)

  3. Companion for Rudin? (Replies: 1)

  4. Rudin's equation (Replies: 2)

Loading...