Understanding Darboux's Theorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of Darboux's theorem in the context of real analysis, specifically focusing on the conditions for the integrability of a bounded function over a bounded subset of R^n. The original poster expresses confusion regarding a specific inequality in the proof and seeks clarification on the reasoning behind it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the transition between different parts of the proof, particularly the inequality involving the sum of function values and volumes. Participants question the assumptions and reasoning used in the proof, especially regarding the handling of overlapping subrectangles.

Discussion Status

Some participants express their confusion and seek further clarification on the proof's details. Suggestions for checking external resources, such as textbooks or contacting authors, have been made, indicating a collaborative effort to resolve the uncertainties present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential oversight in the textbook or proof, and participants are exploring alternative texts that might provide similar theorems or proofs. The original poster has not yet received a definitive answer regarding the inequality in question.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32

Homework Statement


I'm frying my brain on the proof of Darboux's thm. It says that if a subset A of R^n is bounded and f:A-->R is bounded as well, then f is integrable on A with integral I <==> for any e>0, the exists a d>0 such that for a partition P={S_1,...,S_K} of an n-rectangle S containing A, |P|<d ==>

\left|\sum_{i=1}^{K}f(x_i)v(S_i)-I\right|&lt;\epsilon

where x_i belongs to S_i, v(S_i) is the volume of S_i, and |P|<d means that each subrectangle in P has sides lesser than d.

The "<==" part is fairly easy.

For the "==>" part, the author begins by proving the following lemma:

Lemma:Let P be a partition of an n-rectangle B in R^n. Then, given e>0, there is a d>0 such that if P' is another partition of B with |P'|<d, then the sum of the volumes of the subrectangles not entirely contained in an element of P (i.e. overlapping two or more of them) is lesser than e.

To prove the "==>" part of Darboux, the authors begins by writing |f(x)|<M, since f is bounded. Then, observe that since I equals the upper an lower integrals, we have that given e>0, there are partitions P1 and P2 such that L(f,P1) > I - e/2 and U(f,P2) < I + e/2. For P the natural refinement of P1 and P2, we have both inequalities: L(f,P) > I - e/2 and U(f,P) < I + e/2.

Now, according to the above lemma, there exists a d>0 such that if P'={S'_1,...,S'_K} is a partition of S with |P'|<d and with {S'_1,...,S'_N} the elements of P' not entirely contained in an element of P, then

\sum_{i=1}^{N}v(S&#039;_i)&lt;\epsilon/2M

If x_i belongs to S'_i, we have that

\sum_{i=1}^{K}f(x_i)v(S&#039;_i)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}f(x_i)v(S&#039;_i)+\sum_{i=N+1}^{K}f(x_i)v(S&#039;_i)&lt;M(\epsilon/2M)+U(f,P)=\epsilon/2+U(f,P)&lt;I+\epsilon

So far so good. But the authors then complete simply by saying, "similarily,

\sum_{i=1}^{K}f(x_i)v(S&#039;_i)&gt;L(f,P)-\epsilon/2&gt;I-\epsilon"

How is this inequality achieved? After separating the series into two parts like above, we can do the same trick with the first term, but not with the second. Namely, we have

\sum_{i=1}^{N}f(x_i)v(S&#039;_i)&gt;-M\sum_{i=1}^{N}v(S&#039;_i)

and

\sum_{i=1}^{N}v(S&#039;_i)&lt;\epsilon/2M \Rightarrow -M\sum_{i=1}^{N}v(S&#039;_i)&gt;-\epsilon/2

hence

\sum_{i=1}^{N}f(x_i)v(S&#039;_i)&gt;-\epsilon/2

But it is not clear to me if and why it would be the case that

\sum_{i=N+1}^{K}f(x_i)v(S&#039;_i)&gt;L(f,P)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are the 40 readers of my post as puzzled as I am by this, or simply were discouraged of reading by the length of the post? :smile:
 
Personally I'm puzzled! :redface:
 
Last bump. I tried working on this again today and still can't make sense of

\sum_{i=1}^{K}f(x_i)v(S_i&#039;)&gt;L(f,P)-\epsilon/2
 
Have you tried checking the textbook's errata or contacting the author(s), or your professor? It could be an oversight.
 
I had thought of none but will do all. Thx for the advice!
 
Marsden has not replied yet, but one of my professor who is an analyst thinks it is an oversight. However, he cannot point me to another text where this thm is proven!

Does anybody know one??
 
Try Wade, An Introduction to Analysis, third edition, pp. 396. It's not exactly the same theorem, but it's similar.

Otherwise try looking in Spivak.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K