Undergrad Upper and Lower Darboux Sum Inequality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Magnetons
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality Sum
Click For Summary
In the discussion on Upper and Lower Darboux Sum Inequality, it is established that for bounded functions on [a,b], if partition P is a subset of partition Q, then the lower sums satisfy L(f,P) ≤ L(f,Q) and the upper sums satisfy U(f,Q) ≤ U(f,P). The question raised concerns how a finer partition P can yield a larger upper Darboux sum than a coarser partition Q. It is clarified that the finer partition, having smaller Δx values, can capture the supremums of the function more accurately, leading to a potentially larger upper sum. This highlights that finer partitions provide better approximations of the integral, reinforcing the relationship between partition refinement and the accuracy of the Darboux sums. Understanding this relationship is crucial for grasping the convergence of Riemann sums.
Magnetons
Messages
22
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
L(f,P) ##\leq## L(f,Q) ##\leq## U(f,Q) ##\leq## U(f,P)
Lemma
Let f be a bounded function on [a,b]. If P & Q are partitions of [a,b] and P ##\subseteq## Q , then

L(f,P) ##\leq## L(f,Q) ##\leq## U(f,Q) ##\leq## U(f,P) .

Question is "How can P have bigger upper darboux sum than Q while it is a subset of Q"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The finer partition will be as close or closer in both upper and lower sum to the limit than the courser partition. For the upper sum, the supremums of the courser partition are still there, but they are applied to smaller ##\Delta x##s.
 
  • Like
Likes mathguy_1995 and Magnetons
FactChecker said:
The finer partition will be as close or closer in both upper and lower sum to the limit than the courser partition. For the upper sum, the supremums of the courser partition are still there, but they are applied to smaller ##\Delta x##s.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
961
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K