Solve Riemann Integral: Show \( \int_a^b f = \lim U_n = \lim L_n \)

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Fantini
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Riemann
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the integrability of a bounded function \( f \) on the interval \( [a,b] \) using upper and lower Darboux sums \( (U_n) \) and \( (L_n) \). It is established that if \( \lim (U_n - L_n) = 0 \), then \( f \) is integrable, and \( \int_a^b f = \lim U_n = \lim L_n \). The participants clarify that each pair of sums \( U_n \) and \( L_n \) should indeed be associated with a partition \( P_n \), which is crucial for the proof. The source of the problem is identified as "Elementary Analysis: The Theory of Calculus" by Kenneth Ross.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Riemann integrability
  • Familiarity with Darboux sums
  • Knowledge of limits and convergence in calculus
  • Basic concepts of partitions in real analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Riemann integrable functions
  • Learn about the relationship between Darboux sums and Riemann sums
  • Explore the concept of partitions and their refinements in analysis
  • Investigate examples of bounded functions and their integrability
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, mathematicians interested in integration theory, and educators teaching calculus concepts will benefit from this discussion.

Fantini
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Greetings everyone. First, it's great that the site is back again and I hope it can be merged soon enough. :D

Here's the question:
Let \( f \) be a bounded function on \( [a,b] \). Suppose there exist sequences \( (U_n) \) and \( (L_n) \) of upper and lower Darboux sums such that \( \lim (U_n - L_n) = 0 \). Show that \( f \) is integrable and that \( \int_a^b f = \lim U_n = \lim L_n \).

Here's my try:

By the hypothesis, exists \( M > 0 \) such that for all \(n > M, \varepsilon > 0 \) we have \( | U_n(f,P) - L_n(f,P) | < \varepsilon \), hence \( U_n(f,P) - L_n(f,P) < \varepsilon \) for some partition \( P \) of \( [a,b] \). It follows then that \( f \) is integrable, and by the limit properties we see that \( \lim(U_n - L_n) = \lim U_n - \lim L_n = 0 \implies \lim U_n = \lim L_n \).

My question is if that wouldn't imply already that \( \lim U_n = \int_a^b f \)? If not, I'm a bit lost. Would I have to show that for all \( n > M \) we have that \( L_n [f] \geq U_n [f] \), where \( L_n [f] \) and \( U_n[f] \) mean the lower and upper Darboux integrals respectively?

Also, that awkward moment when you type ( f ) without spaces and it becomes (f). (Tongueout)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fantini said:
Here's the question:
Let \( f \) be a bounded function on \( [a,b] \). Suppose there exist sequences \( (U_n) \) and \( (L_n) \) of upper and lower Darboux sums such that \( \lim (U_n - L_n) = 0 \). Show that \( f \) is integrable and that \( \int_a^b f = \lim U_n = \lim L_n \).
This wording seems odd to me. Darbuox sums involve a partition of $[a,b]$.
So when the question says that $U_n~\&~L_n$ are upper and lower sums are we to assume that there is a partition $P_n$ associated with each pair? Moreover, is seems that $P_{n+1}$ should be a refinement of $P_n$
Is that mentioned in the statement of the question?
 
No, I copied the problem as it's written. It's from the book "Elementary Analysis: The Theory of Calculus" by Kenneth Ross. I picked it up at the library as an option to my current analysis course and enjoyed it so far.

I admit that the thought that each \( U_n \& L_n \) would have a partition \( P_n \) associated with the pair occurred to me, but I decided not to follow that path.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K