Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

By the fundamental theorem of calculus I mean the following.

Theorem: Let $B$ be a Banach space and $f : [a, b] \to B$ be a continuously differentiable function (this means that we can write $f(x + h) = f(x) + h f'(x) + o(|h|)$ for some continuous function $f' : [a, b] \to B$). Then

$$\int_a^b f'(t) \, dt = f(b) - f(a).$$

(This integral can be defined in any reasonable way, e.g. one can use the Bochner integral or a Riemann sum.)

This theorem can be proven from Hahn-Banach, which allows you to reduce to the case $B = \mathbb{R}$. However, Hahn-Banach is independent of ZF.

Recently I tried to prove this theorem without Hahn-Banach and found that I couldn't do it. The standard proof in the case $B = \mathbb{R}$ relies on the mean value theorem, which is not applicable here. I can only prove it (I think) under stronger hypotheses, e.g. $f'$ continuously differentiable or Lipschitz.

So I am curious whether this theorem is even true in the absence of Hahn-Banach. It is likely that I am just missing some nice argument involving uniform continuity, but if I'm not, that would be good to know.

share|cite|improve this question
The motivation, in case anyone is wondering, is that I am still trying to prove standard facts about Banach space-valued holomorphic functions without Hahn-Banach, and I think this is the only nontrivial technical step. Everything else should more or less follow from adaptations of the usual proofs. – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 22 '12 at 3:33
up vote 16 down vote accepted

I believe that one of the standard proofs works.

  1. Let $F(x) := \intop_a^x f^\prime (t) dt$. Then $F$ is differentiable and its derivative is $f^\prime$ due to a standard estimate that has nothing to do with AC.

  2. $(F-f)^\prime = 0$, hence it is constant. This boils down to the one-dimensional case: just consider $g := \Vert F-f-F(a)+f(a) \Vert$. It is a real-valued function with zero derivative, and $g(a)=0$, so we can use the usual "one-dimensional" mean value theorem.

share|cite|improve this answer
Regarding 1, I also tried and failed to prove that $F$ is differentiable (again the standard proof that I am aware of uses the mean value theorem). Please elaborate if you actually have a complete proof of this. – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 22 '12 at 4:08
Well, $\Delta F(x) = f^\prime(x) \Delta x + \intop_x^{x+\Delta x} (f^\prime(t) - f^\prime(x)) dt$. You say that you can define the integral using Riemann sums: Ok, then every Riemann sum is bounded in norm by $\Delta x \cdot \sup_{[x, x+\Delta x]} \Vert f^\prime(t) - f^\prime(x) \Vert$. – Alexander Shamov Aug 22 '12 at 4:19
Thanks! That does it. – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 22 '12 at 4:38

Claim: Let $g:[a,b]\to B$ be differentiable, with $g'(t)=0$ for all $t\in[a,b]$. Then $g(t)$ is a constant.

Proof: Fix $\epsilon>0$. For each $t\in[a,b]$, we can find $\delta_t>0$ such that $0<|h|<\delta_t\Rightarrow\|g(t+h)-g(t)\|<\epsilon|h|$. The open intervals $(t-\delta_t,t+\delta_t)$ cover $[a,b]$, so there is a finite subcover $\{(t_i-\delta_{t_i},t_i+\delta_{t_i}):1\leq i\leq N\}$. We may choose our labeling so that $t_1<t_2<\ldots<t_N$. Now, we should be able to find points $x_0,\ldots,x_N$ with $x_0=a<t_1<x_1<t_2<\ldots<t_N<x_N=b$, satisfying $|x_i-t_i|<\delta_i$ and $|x_{i-1}-t_i|<\delta_i$ for $1\leq i\leq N$. Now, \begin{eqnarray*} \|g(b)-g(a)\|&=&\left\|\sum_{i=1}^N(g(x_i)-g(t_{i}))-(g(t_i)-g(x_{i-1}))\right\|\\ &<&\sum_{i=1}^N \epsilon (x_i-t_i)+\epsilon(t_i-x_{i-1})\\ &=&\epsilon(b-a) \end{eqnarray*} Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, we have $g(b)=g(a)$. This argument works on any subinterval, so $g(t)$ is constant.

We can apply the above with $g(x):=\int_a^xf'(t)\,dt-(f(x)-f(a))$. I believe it can be checked directly that $g'(x)=0$ for all $x$, and that $g(a)=0$, so that $g(x)$ must be identically 0.

share|cite|improve this answer
Okay, I think I believe your claim, but I couldn't prove that $\int_a^x f'(t) \, dt$ is differentiable either. Can you prove this? – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 22 '12 at 4:10

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.