Subdividing an integral into a sum of integrals over a given interval

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the property of integrals that allows the subdivision of an integral over an interval into a sum of integrals over two sub-intervals. The focus is on the mathematical justification for this property, particularly in the context of continuous and differentiable functions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an approach to prove the integral property using limits and Riemann sums, but expresses uncertainty about the correctness of their method.
  • Another participant identifies a notational error in the original proof, specifically regarding the use of the same notation for different partitions in the integrals.
  • The second participant suggests that the notation for the points in the Riemann sums should be distinct for each integral to avoid confusion.
  • A later reply proposes refining the partition of the interval [a, c] by including the point "b" to facilitate the separation of the sums in the proof.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on how to proceed with the proof after addressing the notational issue, indicating a desire to redefine the points used in the Riemann sums.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants have not reached a consensus on the proof's correctness, and there are multiple viewpoints regarding the proper notation and approach to take in the proof.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the dependence of the notation on the partition size and the need for clarity in the definitions of the points used in the Riemann sums.

"Don't panic!"
Messages
600
Reaction score
8
How does one prove the following:
[tex]\int^{c}_{a} f\left(x\right)dx = \int^{b}_{a} f\left(x\right)dx +\int^{c}_{b} f\left(x\right)dx[/tex]
where [itex]f\left(x\right)[/itex] is continuous in the interval [itex]x\in \left[a, b\right][/itex], and differentiable on [itex]x\in \left(a, b\right)[/itex].

My approach was the following:

Given that [itex]\int^{b}_{a} f\left(x\right)dx = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\left(b-a\right)}{n} \sum^{n}_{i=1} f\left(x^{\ast}_{i}\right)[/itex], where [itex]x^{\ast}_{i} \in\left[x_{i},x_{i+1}\right][/itex], we have that
[tex]\int^{b}_{a} f\left(x\right)dx +\int^{c}_{b} f\left(x\right)dx = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\left(b-a\right)}{n} \sum^{n}_{i=1} f\left(x^{\ast}_{i}\right) + \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\left(c-b\right)}{n} \sum^{n}_{i=1} f\left(x^{\ast}_{i}\right)[/tex]
[tex]\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \left[\frac{\left(b-a\right)}{n} \sum^{n}_{i=1} f\left(x^{\ast}_{i}\right)+\frac{\left(c-b\right)}{n} \sum^{n}_{i=1} f\left(x^{\ast}_{i}\right)\right] = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n}\left[\left(b-a\right) +\left(c-b\right) \right]\sum^{n}_{i=1} f\left(x^{\ast}_{i}\right)[/tex]
[tex]\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\left(c-a\right)}{n} \sum^{n}_{i=1} f\left(x^{\ast}_{i}\right) = \int^{c}_{a} f\left(x\right)dx[/tex]

However, I have a feeling that this isn't quite correct?!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have made a notational error:

"Don't panic!" said:
[tex]\int^{b}_{a} f\left(x\right)dx +\int^{c}_{b} f\left(x\right)dx = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\left(b-a\right)}{n} \sum^{n}_{i=1} f\left(x^{\ast}_{i}\right) + \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\left(c-b\right)}{n} \sum^{n}_{i=1} f\left(x^{\ast}_{i}\right)[/tex]

You have said

[tex]\int_a^b f(x)dx = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{b-a}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n f(x^*_i)[/tex]

which is fine. But then you also do

[tex]\int_b^c f(x)dx = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{c-b}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n f(x^*_i)[/tex]

However, this is wrong. You cannot use the same notation ##x^*_i## in both equations. Indeed, the x_i^* of the integral ##\int_a^bf(x)dx## are not the same ##x_i^*## of the other integral. So you need to denote it as something else such as

[tex]\int_b^c f(x)dx = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{c-b}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n f(y^*_i)[/tex]

Also, your points ##x_i^*## should be depending on ##n##, since if ##n## changes, then so do these points. So you should probably call them ##x_{i,n}^*##.
 
Ah ok, thanks for pointing that out. How should I proceed with the proof from that point then?
 
What you can do is choose a refinement of every partition of [a, c] by adding the point "b". Then you can separate the sum from a to b and the sum from b to c.
 
Ah ok, so I should start with [itex]\int_{a}^{c} f\left(x\right) dx = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\left(c-a\right)}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} f\left(x_{i,n}^{\ast}\right)[/itex], and then redefine the point [itex]x_{i,n}^{\ast}[/itex] by adding the point "b", such that I can split the sum up on the RHS? (i.e. choose a set of points, [itex]x_{i,n}^{\ast} \in\left[ x_{i},x_{i+1} \right][/itex] in the interval [itex]x\in \left[a,b\right][/itex], and then another one, [itex]y_{j,n}^{\ast} \in\left[ y_{j},y_{j+1} \right][/itex] in the interval [itex]x\in \left[b,c\right][/itex])
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K