Upper-Lower sum of Riemann Integral

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the properties of the upper and lower sums in the context of Riemann integrals, particularly examining the behavior of these sums when a function is multiplied by a constant. Participants explore the implications of this multiplication on the upper and lower sums and engage in clarifying the relationships between supremum and infimum for negative functions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof regarding the integrability of the function $kf$ and the relationship between the integrals of $kf$ and $f$, depending on the sign of $k$.
  • Another participant states the relationship between the supremum of a negative function and the infimum of the original function, asserting that $\sup_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}(-f) = - \inf_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}f$.
  • A participant questions whether $\inf_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}(-f)$ is equal to $- \sup_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}f$ and receives confirmation on this relationship.
  • One participant suggests an exercise to demonstrate the properties of the supremum and infimum for negative sets, indicating a method to understand the relationships discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the relationships between the supremum and infimum of negative functions, but the discussion includes questions and clarifications that indicate some uncertainty regarding the implications of these relationships in the context of Riemann sums.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve all assumptions regarding the behavior of upper and lower sums under multiplication by negative constants, and the implications of these relationships remain partially explored.

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