I am having trouble understanding an inequality in Theorem 2.20 from "Real and Complex Analysis."

Rudin states that if $f\in\operatorname{C}_c(\mathbb{R}^k)$ , $f$ is real, $W$ is an open k-cell which contains the support of $f$, and $\epsilon>0$ , such that

(i) $g$ and $h$ are constant on each box belonging to $\Omega_N$

(ii) $g\leq f\leq h$

(iii) $h-g<\epsilon$

If $n>N$, Property 2.19(c) shows that

$$\Lambda_N g = \Lambda_n g \leq \Lambda_n f \leq \Lambda_n h = \Lambda_N h$$

Here $\Lambda$ is defined as

$$\Lambda_n f := \lim\limits_{n \to \infty} 2^{-nk} \sum\limits_{x \in P_n} f(x)$$

$\Omega_n$ is

the collection of all $2^{-n}$ boxes with corners at $P_n$

$P_n$ is

the set of all $x\in\mathbb{R^k}$ whose coordinates are integral multiples of $2^{-n}$

Property 2.19 (c) is

For $\{\Omega_n\}$, if $Q\in \Omega_r$, then vol$(Q)=2^{-rk}$; and if $n>r$, the set $P_n$ has exactly $2^{(n-r)k}$ points in $Q$

What I don't understand is how Property 2.19(c) implies that $\Lambda_N g = \Lambda_n g$ and $\Lambda_N h = \Lambda_n h$


1 Answer 1


When you calculate $\Lambda_ng $, you are adding over more boxes, i.e, you are subdividing the boxes from $\Omega_n $. But $g $ is constant over those additional boxes. Concretely, a fixed $x\in P_N $ corresponds to some box $Q\in\Omega_N $; then, as $g $ is constant in $Q $, $$ 2^{-nk}\sum_{y\in P_n\cap Q}g (y)=2^{-nk}g (x)\sum_{y\in P_n\cap Q}1 =2^{-nk}2^{(n-N)k}g (x)=2^{-Nk}g (x). $$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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