Test question we don't know who is right

  • Thread starter Thread starter futurebird
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Test
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating a Stieltjes integral involving the floor function, specifically \(\int_{0}^{n}f d \alpha\) where \(\alpha(x) = [x]\) and \(n\) is an integer. Participants are exploring the implications of the floor function on the integral's value and whether it can be zero or if it takes on other forms based on the function \(f(x)\).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the nature of the Stieltjes integral and its dependence on the properties of the floor function. There are attempts to clarify the relationship between the integral and the supremum and infimum of \(f(x)\) over specific intervals. Some participants suggest examining simpler cases to build intuition.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing insights and questioning each other's reasoning. Some have provided examples to illustrate their points, while others express confusion about the implications of certain definitions and the behavior of the integral under different partitions.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted distinction between the variable \(n\) in the Stieltjes sum and the \(n\) in the original problem statement, which has led to some confusion. Participants are also grappling with the concept of partition refinement and its effect on the evaluation of the integral.

futurebird
Messages
270
Reaction score
0
Suppose \alpha(x) = [x] is the floor function, then what is the value of \int_{0}^{n}f d \alpha
for f(x) \in R_{\alpha}[0,n]

where n is an integer?This was a question on my exam. I want to know if I got it right. Some say the answer is zero, but I think it is:

\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \max \{ f(x) : i < x \leq i+1\}

Because M_i = \sup \{ f(x) | x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \} gets multiplied with the difference of the endpoints of every possible partition and, with a fine enough partition, we will get the value 0 most of the time and we will get the vale 1 n-1 times.BACKGROUNDLet me add some more info:

To take the Stietjes integral you write P = \{a= x_0 < x_1 < \cdots < x_n = b \} a partition of the interval [a ,b]. Then \Delta \alpha_i = \alpha( x_i) - \alpha (x_{i-1}) for i= 1, ..., n. Next for each i = 1, ..., n we define:

m_i = \inf \{ f(x) : x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \}
M_i = \sup \{ f(x) : x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \}

Now we can define the lower and upper Stietjes sums:

L(f, P) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}m_i\Delta \alpha_i
U(f, P) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}M_i\Delta \alpha_i

Now we can define the lower and upper Stietjes integrals, which are equal for any Stietjes integrable function over a given \alpha.

\bar{\int_{a}^{b}}f d \alpha = \inf_P U(f,P)

\int_{a}^{b}f d \alpha = \sup_P L(f,P)

So that's what we are talking about with this problem.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
*Bump*

This is driving me crazy.
 
What you have is basically right. The best way to get the details straight is to look at simple examples. \alpha(x) is constant except where x is an integer so d\alpha is 0 except at integers. If n= 1, \int_0^1 f(x)d\alpha= 0[/itex]. If n= 2, the integral is f(0)+ f(1). If n= 3, the integral is f(0)+ f(1)+ f(3), etc.
 
futurebird, the n in the Stieltjes sum is not the same n as in the statement of your problem.

Your intuition should be able to guide you quickly the correct answer. Review the simpler case where \alpha(x)=0 for x<c and \alpha(x)=1 for x\ge c. What then is \int_a^b f(x)\,d\alpha(x) when a<c<b?
 
Billy Bob said:
futurebird, the n in the Stieltjes sum is not the same n as in the statement of your problem.

Your intuition should be able to guide you quickly the correct answer. Review the simpler case where \alpha(x)=0 for x<c and \alpha(x)=1 for x\ge c. What then is \int_a^b f(x)\,d\alpha(x) when a<c<b?

Well for \int_a^b f(x)\,d\alpha(x) the change in alpha is 1 at least once for all partitions...
 
<br /> m_i = \inf \{ f(x) : x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \}<br />

so

<br /> L(f, P) = \inf \{ f(x) : x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \ni c \in (x_{i-1},x_i) \}<br />

Then

<br /> \int_{a}^{b}f d \alpha = \sup_P L(f,P) = \inf \{ f(x) : a \leq x \leq b \}<br />

It seems like the same idea as the sum I described above.
 
But now it looks like:

<br /> <br /> \inf \{ f(x) : a \leq x \leq b \} = \sup \{ f(x) : a \leq x \leq b \}<br /> <br />

making f(x) a constant function. I'm so lost.
 
futurebird said:
<br /> L(f, P) = \inf \{ f(x) : x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \ni c \in (x_{i-1},x_i) \}<br />

This is L(f, P) where P depends on the choice of x_{i-1} and x_i, with the only requirement being that c \in (x_{i-1},x_i).

Take x_{i-1} and x_i very close to c.
 
Why would I want to make the partition so snug around c? I mean I know that can be done... but why? I want to say that the vale is f(c).

But I don't think this is justified. (or I don't understand why it is justified.)
 
  • #10
futurebird said:
Why would I want to make the partition so snug around c? I mean I know that can be done... but why? I want to say that the vale is f(c).

But I don't think this is justified. (or I don't understand why it is justified.)

You have to find \sup_P L(f,P), and you get closer and closer to the sup when the partition is more and more snug.
 
  • #11
OK. I just thought "sup" meant whatever partition gave the greatest value and had nothing to do with "snugness" -- so if a big messy partition gives the largest value it's the "sup" -- but now I'm thinking that this might not ever happen I think we had a theorem that said refinements are bigger... OK...

This is making more sense now.

Thanks.
 
  • #12
Right! In fact, why not take P_j to be the simple partition a&lt;c-\frac1j&lt;c+\frac1j&lt;b?

Just three subintervals: two fat and one skinny!
 
  • #13
Thanks so much for all of your help!
 
  • #14
futurebird said:
OK. I just thought "sup" meant whatever partition gave the greatest value and had nothing to do with "snugness" -- so if a big messy partition gives the largest value it's the "sup" -- but now I'm thinking that this might not ever happen I think we had a theorem that said refinements are bigger... OK...

This is making more sense now.

Thanks.

I've lost your train of thought, but I think you may have overlooked the fact that the lower integral is the supremum of an infimum -- and you forgot about the infimum part.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K