30
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 22 '12 at 3:33
18
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 22 '12 at 4:08
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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 $\Delta x \cdot \sup_{[x, x+\Delta x]} \Vert f^\prime(t) - f^\prime(x) \Vert$. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Shamov Aug 22 '12 at 4:19
  • $\begingroup$ How do you show $g$ is differentiable? Perhaps one should look at its projection under linear functionals. $\endgroup$ – Miheer Jun 20 '19 at 20:49
5
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 22 '12 at 4:10
1
$\begingroup$

It seems that all suggestions above work under the assumption that $f$ is continuous and piece wise continuously differentiable in order to be able to use standard uniform continuity type arguments. Here is how it could be done under the assumption above:

It is enough to assume that $f'$ is also continuous, The strong measurability of $f'$ is straight forward and so is the integrability of $\|f'\|$. This in turn implies that $f'$ is integrable. The sequence $$f'_n(t)=\sum^{(2^n-1)\wedge b}_{k=(-2^n)\vee a}f'\big(\frac{k}{2^n}\big)\mathbb{1}_{\big(\frac{k}{2^n},\frac{k+1}{2^n}\big]}(t)$$ For instance can be use to approximate $f'$ over $[a,b]$ uniformly. The slightly tricky part is to show $f(b)-f(a)=\int^b_a f'$. For this, We observe that $$\frac{1}{h}\Big\|\int^{t+h}_{t}\big(f'(s)-f'(t)\big)\,ds\Big\|\leq \sup_{x,y\in[t,t+h]}\|f'(x)-f'(y)\|$$ Which can be made small for sufficiently small $h$ by the uniform continuity of $f'$ over $[a,b]$. Similar argument can be used for $[t-h,t]$. ALl this shows that $F:t\mapsto\int^t_af'(s)\,ds$ is differentiable and that $F'(t)=f'(t)$. The conclusion then follows from the mean value theorem for Banach spaces: $$\|F(b)-(f(b)-f(a))-F(a)\|\leq \sup_{a\leq x\leq b}\|F'(x)-f'(x)\||b-a|=0$$ More general situations, for instance, when all one assumes is that $f$ is absolutely continuous over $[a,b]$ and then get as consequence that

  • $f$ is differentiable almost everywhere,
  • that $f'$ is integrable (a la Bochner),
  • and that $f(b)-f(a)=\int^a_b f(t)\,dt$

would require additional assumptions on the Banach space $B$. For instance, that its dual $B^*$ is separable. The use of Hanh-Banach's theorem then would seem to be inevitable.

$\endgroup$

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.