Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Let $a < c < d < b$. Let $f(x)=\begin{cases} 1 \text{ if } x \in [c,d]\\ 0 \text{ if } x \in [a,b]\setminus[c,d]. \end{cases}$

I want to verify that I understand how to properly apply the upper and lower Darboux sums.

Let $P=\{a=x_0<...<x_{k-1}<c<x_k<...<x_{l-1}<d<x_l<...<x_n=b\}$

$U(f,P)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}M_i(f)\Delta x_i=\sum\limits_{i=k}^{l}M_i\Delta x_i=x_l-x_k \geq d-c.$

Verify that $L(f,P) \leq d-c$. This is my attempt at a verification.

$L(f,P)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}m_i(f)\Delta x_i=\sum\limits_{i=k-1}^{l-1}m_i\Delta x_i=x_{l-1}-x_{k-1} \leq d-c.$

Is my verification correct?

share|improve this question
    
Shouldn't your $f(x)=0$ if $x\in [a,b]\setminus [c,d]$ instead of the other way around? –  Stefan Hansen Jan 17 '13 at 12:08
1  
Your definition of $f$ is not clear, as you use the interval $[c,d]$ both times. Also, since you use $\Delta x_i = x_i - x_{i-1}$ $$ L(f,P) = \sum_{i=k\color{red}{+1}}^{l-1}M_i\Delta x_i. $$ –  Ilya Jan 17 '13 at 12:08
    
I just noticed that I defined the function incorrectly. Also, why does it have to be $k+1$ and not just $k$? –  emka Jan 17 '13 at 12:11
1  
@emka: well, it can be $k$ as well but the point is that $\min\{f(x):x\in [x_{k-1},x_k]\} = 0$ so that the sum ends up in $x_{l-1} - x_{k+1}$. –  Ilya Jan 17 '13 at 12:13
    
@Ilya This makes more sense. Thanks! –  emka Jan 17 '13 at 12:17

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Yes, this is correct except for some indices. Just to sum up: $$ M_i=\sup_{[x_{i-1},x_i]}f= \begin{cases}1,\quad &i=k,\ldots,l\\ 0,&\text{otherwise} \end{cases} $$ by the definition of $f$ and your partition $P$. A similar thing holds for $m_i$. Then $$ U(f,P)=\sum_{i=1}^n M_i(x_i-x_{i-1})=\sum_{i=k}^l (x_i-x_{i-1})=x_l-x_{k-1}\geq d-c, $$ and similarly for $L(f,P)$. Note that you want $x_l$ to be larger than $d$ but $x_{k-1}$ to be smaller than $c$ in order for the inequality to hold.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for helping me clear this up. I haphazardly copied this example off of the board and didn't really understand it until now. –  emka Jan 17 '13 at 12:17

Your Answer

 
discard

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.