2
$\begingroup$

I have a serious concern regarding the proof of the Cauchy criterion implying the Riemann integrability
$\text{Cauchy Criterion}:$ $\space \space$ A function: $[a,b] \to \mathbb{R}$ belongs to $\mathcal{R}[a,b]$ if and only if for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $n_\epsilon>0$ such that if $\dot P$ and $\dot Q$ are any tagged partitions of $[a,b]$ with $||\dot P||<n_\epsilon$ and $||\dot Q||<n_\epsilon,$ then $$|S(f;\dot P)-S(f;\dot Q)|<\epsilon$$ The forward implication is clear.
Conversely
$(\Leftarrow)$ For each $n\in \mathbb{N},$ let $\delta_n>0$ be such that if $\dot P$ and $\dot Q$ are tagged partitions with norms $<\delta_n,$ then $$|S(f;\dot P)-S(f;\dot Q)|<\frac{1}{n}.$$ Evidently we may assume that $\delta_n\ge \delta_{n+1}$ for $n\in \mathbb{N};$ otherwise, we replace $\delta_n$ by $\delta'_n:=\min\{\delta_1,..,\delta_n\}.$
$\space$ For each $n\in \mathbb{N},$ let $\dot P_n$ be a tagged partition with $||\dot P_n||<\delta_n$. Clearly, if $m>n$ then both $\dot P_m$ and $\dot P_n$ have norms $<\delta_n$, so that $$|S(f;\dot P_n)-S(f;\dot P_m)|<\frac{1}{n} \space \space \space ,m>n \tag1$$ And the proof goes ..

Question
How can we assume that $\delta_n\ge \delta_{n+1}?$ I get the whole point of assuming it because only then can we get $(1)$ as a Cauchy sequence. But how can we assume it?.. What would go wrong if $\delta_n<\delta_{n+1}?$ Also this whole proof is implying that $\epsilon \to 0$ implies $\delta \to 0$. Thinking about this graphically makes sense, but nowhere in the definition is this obvious to me.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Very good question. This criterion of integrability is not very popular and I am happy that someone cares about it. +1 $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Jul 24 '16 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ if $\delta_{n} < \delta_{n + 1}$ then it would be somewhat difficult to show that $S(f; P_{n})$ forms a Cauchy sequence. And it is not necessary that $\delta_{n} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$. Only $\delta_{n}$ should decrease. For a constant function $f$ any Riemann sum has the same value and the norm of partition need not tend to $0$. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Jul 24 '16 at 13:04
  • $\begingroup$ thank you sir, noted your point @ParamanandSingh $\endgroup$ – Bijesh K.S Jul 26 '16 at 15:22
2
$\begingroup$

I'll answer your question about how we can assume $\delta_{n} \geq \delta_{n+1}$. (You say that you understand why we want it to be true.)

Let's fix $n$ for the moment. Let's say we already found $\delta_1,\ldots, \delta_n$. According to the hypothesis, we can find $\delta_{n+1}^{\ast} > 0$ such that $$ |S(f,P) - S(f,Q)| < \frac{1}{n+1} $$ for any tagged partitions $P$ and $Q$ with $\|P\| < \delta_{n+1}^{\ast}$ and $\|Q\| < \delta_{n+1}^{\ast}$.

I used the notation $\delta_{n+1}^{\ast}$ because it is our first try for $\delta_{n+1}$. It could be that $\delta_{n+1}^{\ast}$ is larger than $\delta_{n}$.

To fix that, for our second attempt we define $$ \delta_{n+1} = \min(\delta_n,\delta_{n+1}^{\ast}). $$ Let's check that $\delta_{n+1}$ does what we want.

Clearly $\delta_{n} \geq \delta_{n+1}$. So that's taken care of.

We also want $\delta_{n+1}$ to have the property that $$ |S(f,P) - S(f,Q)| < \frac{1}{n+1} $$ for any tagged partitions $P$ and $Q$ with $\|P\| < \delta_{n+1}$ and $\|Q\| < \delta_{n+1}$. Let's check it.

From the definition of $\delta_{n+1}$, it's clear that $\delta_{n+1}^{\ast} \geq \delta_{n+1}$. So for any tagged partitions $P$ and $Q$ with $\|P\| < \delta_{n+1}$ and $\|Q\| < \delta_{n+1}$, we have $\|P\| < \delta_{n+1}^{\ast}$ and $\|Q\| < \delta_{n+1}^{\ast}$, and therefore (by the original property of $\delta_{n+1}^{\ast}$) we have $$ |S(f,P) - S(f,Q)| < \frac{1}{n+1}. $$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You absolutely convinced me on the first part, great job! If you could answer the question completely this could be an accepted answer, thanks @RitterSport $\endgroup$ – Bijesh K.S Jul 24 '16 at 7:01
  • $\begingroup$ Just to clarify, your second question is: What would go wrong if $\delta_n < \delta_{n+1}?$ @BijeshK.S $\endgroup$ – RitterSport Jul 24 '16 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ never mind, one of the comments made this clear. Thank you $\endgroup$ – Bijesh K.S Jul 26 '16 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome. :) $\endgroup$ – RitterSport Jul 26 '16 at 22:40

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.