MHB Upper-Lower sum of Riemann Integral

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 $\inf(-A) = -\sup A$.
 
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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K