MHB What does an asterisk (*) mean in the definition of an integral?

Click For Summary
In the definition of an integral, the asterisk (*) above x_i indicates that it represents any point within the subdivision interval, which is crucial for Riemann sums as it shows that the choice of point does not affect the convergence to the integral. The width of the rectangles used in the approximation is determined by Δx = (b - a)/n, which approaches zero as n increases. The discussion also touches on the use of n versus n-1 in summation notation, clarifying that both conventions are generally equivalent, provided that the bottom index does not become zero. Understanding these notations is essential for grasping the foundational concepts of integration. Overall, the asterisk and the choice of summation limits are important for accurately interpreting integral definitions.
find_the_fun
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
In the definition of an integral what does the astrix (*) mean above the [math]x_i[/math]? I got confused in class today because the prof used an astrix but just to mean the equation we had been talking about.

View attachment 1250

Also, I sometimes see the top of the sigma being [math]n-1[/math] instead of [math]n[/math]. I guess it doesn't really make a difference since [math]n[/math] goes to infinity but why the difference?
 

Attachments

  • eq0004M.gif
    eq0004M.gif
    476 bytes · Views: 144
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: What does an astrix (*) mean in the definition of an integral?

In this context (Riemann sums, I presume) it means "any $x_i$ within the subdivision interval" (this interval being a function of $\Delta x = \frac{b - a}{n}$, which tends to zero, and represents the width of the little rectangles you are using to approximate the integral). This is because you'll see that no matter what $x_i$ you pick within this interval (left point, right point, midpoint, some random point, ...) the Riemann sum will converge to the integral.

See here for a better explanation.

As for the $n$ versus $n - 1$ problem, have you checked that the bottom doesn't become $0$ when $n - 1$ is used? Those are all conventions and are equivalent (or at least, they should be).
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K