- #1

- 395

- 14

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter johnqwertyful
- Start date

- #1

- 395

- 14

- #2

Simon Bridge

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 17,857

- 1,655

It does not "define a notion of area" - it is a way of calculating areas by dividing them up into arbitrarily small bits.

- #3

pwsnafu

Science Advisor

- 1,080

- 85

I haven't been able to find widely accepted axiomatic treatment of integration.

See the Daniell integral.

- #4

- 395

- 14

It does not "define a notion of area" - it is a way of calculating areas by dividing them up into arbitrarily small bits.

My real analysis professor said integrals define area. If not, then how IS area defined? What if two different integrals give you two different areas, which one is the "true" area?

Also, "fancy way of doing sum" is incredibly handwavey. Can I call any fancy way of doing sum an integral? Johnqwertyful integral: add up the natural numbers 1 through 100 then subtract 4. That's an integral because it's a fancy way of doing a sum.

Last edited:

- #5

- 395

- 14

See the Daniell integral.

Interesting. I like the axiomatic treatment of it. How widely are these axioms accepted/used? Are there any interesting examples of integrals that follow these axioms?

- #6

WannabeNewton

Science Advisor

- 5,800

- 536

It does not "define a notion of area" - it is a way of calculating areas by dividing them up into arbitrarily small bits.

Actually a sum is a special type of integral.

- #7

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,139

- 1,331

an integral is essentially a way to assign a number m(f) to each function f in some linear space of functions which is linear, i.e. such that m(af+bg) = a.m(f) + b.m(g), and non negative, i.e. such that m(f) ≥ 0 whenever f ≥ 0. I.e. it is a non negative linear functional defined on a linear space of functions.

Different ways of assigning this number m(f) to f are valid for different spaces of functions. E.g. the Riemann and Lebesgue definitions of the number m(f) agree for those functions where both assignments make sense, but the Lebesgue definition applies to a larger space of functions.

If you want to pin it down more you can assume, for functions defined on subsets of the real line, that if f is a function equal to 1 on any interval [a,b] and equal to zero elsewhere, that m(f) = b-a. Just these simple requirements already force the definition of the integral for Riemann integrable functions, i.e. those with sufficiently good approximations from above and below by step functions.

If we add a condition on the behavior of the number m(f) under taking pointwise limits of functions, it seems we can also force the definition of the number m(f) for all Lebesgue integrable functions.

Different ways of assigning this number m(f) to f are valid for different spaces of functions. E.g. the Riemann and Lebesgue definitions of the number m(f) agree for those functions where both assignments make sense, but the Lebesgue definition applies to a larger space of functions.

If you want to pin it down more you can assume, for functions defined on subsets of the real line, that if f is a function equal to 1 on any interval [a,b] and equal to zero elsewhere, that m(f) = b-a. Just these simple requirements already force the definition of the integral for Riemann integrable functions, i.e. those with sufficiently good approximations from above and below by step functions.

If we add a condition on the behavior of the number m(f) under taking pointwise limits of functions, it seems we can also force the definition of the number m(f) for all Lebesgue integrable functions.

Last edited:

- #8

Simon Bridge

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 17,857

- 1,655

If two different integrals give you different areas - then how can an integralMy real analysis professor said integrals define area. If not, then how IS area defined? What if two different integrals give you two different areas, which one is the "true" area?

(Your real-analysis prof was probably being glib.)

Notice that the concept of area in geometry predates the invention of integral calculus and can be taught to students before they know about integration. OTOH: See WannabeNewton's comment below - maybe grade-schoolers have "actually" been doing a form of integration when they thought they were "merely" finding areas?

Naturally. There are lots of different ways to do sums, integration is one of them, but not all ways of doing sums are integration. Integration is closer to grade-school summation than, say, multiplication.Also, "fancy way of doing sum" is incredibly handwavey. Can I call any fancy way of doing sum an integral? Johnqwertyful integral: add up the natural numbers 1 through 100 then subtract 4. That's an integral because it's a fancy way of doing a sum.

I realize you want some sort of axiomatic approach - you have been given one.

Actually a sum is a special type of integral.

Chickens and eggs.

- #9

- 395

- 14

You said that integrals calculate area, but what if two different integrals give you two different areas? You're saying that there is one true area that every integral should give you. If that is true, why are their different integrals?If two different integrals give you different areas - then how can an integraldefine"area"?

(Your real-analysis prof was probably being glib.)

It's the same idea as different metrics. A metric on a set doesn't calculate distance, it

Notice that the concept of area in geometry predates the invention of integral calculus and can be taught to students before they know about integration. OTOH: See WannabeNewton's comment below - maybe grade-schoolers have "actually" been doing a form of integration when they thought they were "merely" finding areas?

And I'm sure grade-schoolers have been doing addition and multiplication without the slightest idea of what rings, fields, groups, etc. are. Newton did calculus incredibly hand wavey, and when the founders of analysis came through, they formalized certain concepts. Everything gets done hand wavey at first, then gets formalized later.

Mhmm, and I appreciate it.Naturally. There are lots of different ways to do sums, integration is one of them, but not all ways of doing sums are integration. Integration is closer to grade-school summation than, say, multiplication.

I realize you want some sort of axiomatic approach - you have been given one.

- #10

Simon Bridge

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 17,857

- 1,655

No, I didn't.You said that integrals calculate area, but what if two different integrals give you two different areas?

I said that integrals are a way of calculating areas.

Because there are different size areas and different ways of applying the concept of area.You're saying that there is one true area that every integral should give you. If that is true, why are their different integrals?

If you walk the distance - does your experience depend on which metric you applied? i.e. what is the empirical experience of the metric?It's the same idea as different metrics. A metric on a set doesn't calculate distance, itdefinesdistance. And two different metrics will give you two different distances.

There will be cases where the different metrics change the result of an experiment - what does that mean?

Look - I get it. We are approaching this from different world-views ... it is entirely a philosophical difference here.

- #11

WannabeNewton

Science Advisor

- 5,800

- 536

- #12

atyy

Science Advisor

- 14,395

- 2,637

Is there such a thing as a sum of an unmeasuable set, and would that constitute an example where the sum is not a special instance of integration?

Last edited:

- #13

Simon Bridge

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 17,857

- 1,655

Just like there are sums where multiplication is not a useful strategy.

- #14

- 1,082

- 25

Not with respect to the counting measure. The measurable sets are the power set.Is there such a thing as a sum of an unmeasuable set, and would that constitute an example where the sum is not a special instance of integration?

- #15

atyy

Science Advisor

- 14,395

- 2,637

Not with respect to the counting measure. The measurable sets are the power set.

Is the notion of algebraic sum used here also a sort of integration?

http://www.math.wvu.edu/~kcies/Other/ElectronicReprints/85.pdf

- #16

chiro

Science Advisor

- 4,790

- 132

The measure dictates how its done and you need to have conditions like the one mathwonk posted, but in the end its just a fancy way of "measuring" something by adding things up.

What that measure relates to in terms of some other quantity - particularly if it has a physical meaning is something else, but mathematics doesn't care about that when it comes to abstract measures.

To understand what the integral means you just have to understand what the measure represents and what its telling you in the context of what is being integrated (and with respect to what measure).

Share:

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 4K