Upper-Lower sum of Riemann Integral

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the properties of the Riemann integral, specifically the integrability of the function \(kf\) when \(f\) is integrable and \(k \in \mathbb{R}\). It establishes that \(U(kf,P) = k \cdot U(f,P)\) for \(k > 0\) and \(U(kf,P) = k \cdot L(f,P)\) for \(k < 0\). The participants confirm the relationships between the supremum and infimum of negative functions, concluding that \(\sup_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}(-f) = -\inf_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}f\) and \(\inf_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}(-f) = -\sup_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}f\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Riemann integrals and their properties
  • Familiarity with supremum and infimum concepts in real analysis
  • Basic knowledge of bounded sets in mathematics
  • Ability to manipulate mathematical expressions involving limits and sums
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Riemann integrals in detail
  • Explore exercises on supremum and infimum in real analysis
  • Learn about the implications of scaling functions in integration
  • Investigate the relationship between bounded sets and their negative counterparts
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematicians, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of Riemann integrals and the behavior of functions under scaling.

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

I am looking at the proof that if $f$ is integrable and $k \in \mathbb{R}$,then $kf$ is also integrable and $\int_a^b{(kf)}=k \int_a^b{f}$.

The following identity is used at my textbook:
$$U(kf,P)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
k \cdot U(f,P), \text{ if } k>0\\
k \cdot L(f,P), \text{ if } k<0
\end{matrix}\right.\text{ and } L(kf,P)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
k \cdot L(f,P), \text{ if } k>0\\
k \cdot U(f,P), \text{ if } k<0
\end{matrix}\right.$$

For $k>0$ it is like that: $U(kf,P)=\Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1}(t_{i+1}-t_i)sup(kf)([t_i,t_{i+1}])=k \cdot \Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1}(t_{i+1}-t_i)sup(f)([t_i,t_{i+1}])=k \cdot U(f,P)$For $k<0$,let $k=-m,m>0$.We have: $U(kf,P)=\Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1}(t_{i+1}-t_i)sup(m(-f))([t_i,t_{i+1}])=m \cdot \Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1}(t_{i+1}-t_i)sup((-f))([t_i,t_{i+1}])$

Is the last relation equal to $m \cdot \Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1}(t_{i+1}-t_i)inf(f)([t_i,t_{i+1}])$?? But,if it was like that,$U(kf,P)=m \cdot L(f,P)=-k \cdot L(f,P)$..Or am I wrong??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$$\sup_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}(-f) = - \inf_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}f$$
 
ThePerfectHacker said:
$$\sup_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}(-f) = - \inf_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}f$$

A ok.. :) And what's with $\inf_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}(-f)$ ? Is it equal to $- \sup_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}f$ ?? :confused:
 
evinda said:
A ok.. :) And what's with $\inf_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}(-f)$ ? Is it equal to $- \sup_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}f$ ?? :confused:

Yes. To see why here is an exercise.

Exercise: Let $A$ be a non-empty bounded set of real numbers. Define $-A = \{ -a ~ | a\in A\}$, the set of negatives of $A$. Show that $-A$ is a bounded set also, and $\sup(-A) = -\inf A$ and $\inf(-A) = -\sup A$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K