MHB Upper-Lower sum of Riemann Integral

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the properties of Riemann integrals, specifically the integrability of scaled functions. It confirms that if a function f is integrable, then kf is also integrable for any real number k, with the integral of kf being k times the integral of f. The participants analyze the upper and lower sums for positive and negative k, questioning the relationships between supremum and infimum when negating the function. They conclude that the supremum of -f is indeed the negative of the infimum of f, and vice versa. This mathematical property is supported by an exercise demonstrating the boundedness and relationships of the sets involved.
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 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K