11
$\begingroup$

Here is Theorem 6.17 in the book Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin, 3rd edition:

Assume $\alpha$ increases monotonically and $\alpha^\prime \in \mathscr{R}$ on $[a, b]$. Let $f$ be a bounded real function on $[a, b]$.

Then $f \in \mathscr{R}(\alpha)$ if and only if $f\alpha^\prime \in \mathscr{R}$. In that case $$ \int_a^b f \,d\alpha = \int_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x)\, dx. $$

For terminology, here is the link to my post here on Math SE on Theorem 6.15 in Baby Rudin, 3rd edition.

Here is Rudin's proof of Theorem 6.17:

Let $\varepsilon > 0$ be given and apply Theorem 6.6 to $\alpha^\prime$: There is a partition $P = \left\{ \ x_0, \ldots, x_n \ \right\}$ of $[a, b]$ such that $$ \tag{28} U(P, \alpha^\prime) - L(P, \alpha^\prime) < \varepsilon. $$ The mean value theorem furnishes points $t_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$ such that $$ \Delta \alpha_i = \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \Delta x_i $$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n$. If $s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, then $$ \tag{29} \sum_{i=1}^n \left\lvert \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \right\rvert \Delta x_i < \varepsilon, $$ by (28) and Theorem 6.7 (b). Put $M = \sup \lvert f(x) \rvert$. Since $$ \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i = \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \Delta x_i $$ it follows from (29) that $$ \tag{30} \left\lvert \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i - \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \Delta x_i \right\rvert \leq M \varepsilon. $$ In particular, $$ \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i \leq U( P, f \alpha^\prime ) + M \varepsilon, $$ for all choices of $s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, so that $$ U(P, f, \alpha) \leq U(P, f \alpha^\prime) + M \varepsilon. $$ The same argument leads from (30) to $$ U(P, f \alpha^\prime) \leq U(P, f, \alpha) + M \varepsilon. $$ Thus $$ \tag{31} \left\lvert U(P, f, \alpha) - U(P, f \alpha^\prime ) \right\rvert \leq M \varepsilon. $$

Now note that (28) remains true if $P$ is replaced by any refinement. Hence (31) also remains true. We conclude that $$ \left\lvert \overline{\int}_a^b f \, d \alpha - \overline{\int}_a^b f (x) \alpha^\prime(x) \,dx \right\rvert \leq M \varepsilon. $$ But $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary. Hence $$ \tag{32} \overline{\int}_a^b f \,d \alpha = \overline{\int}_a^b f (x) \alpha^\prime(x) \,dx $$ for any bounded $f$. The equality of the lower integrals follows from (30) in exactly the same way. The theorem follows.

Here is Theorem 6.6 in Baby Rudin, 3rd edition:

$f \in \mathscr{R}(\alpha)$ on $[a, b]$ if and only if for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P$ such that $$ \tag{13} U(P, f, \alpha ) - L(P, f, \alpha ) < \varepsilon. $$

Here is Theorem 6.7:

Theorem 6. 7(a):

If (13) holda for some $P$ and some $\varepsilon$, then (13) holds (with the same $\varepsilon$) for every refinement of $P$.

Theorem 6. 7(b):

If (13) holds for $P = \left\{ \ x_0, \ldots, x_n \ \right\}$ and if $s_i$, $t_i$ are arbitrary points in $\left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, then $$ \sum_{i=1}^n \left\lvert f \left( s_i \right) - f \left( t_i \right) \right\rvert \Delta \alpha_i < \varepsilon. $$

Theorem 6.7(c):

If $f \in \mathscr{R}(\alpha)$ and the hypotheses of (b) hold, then $$ \left\lvert \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( t_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i - \int_a^b f\, d \alpha \right\rvert < \varepsilon. $$

Now here is my understanding of Rudin's proof of Theorem 6.17:

As $f$ is a bounded real function on $[a, b]$, so there is a positive real number $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $$ \lvert f(x) \rvert < M \tag{0} $$ for all $x \in [a, b]$.

Let $\varepsilon > 0$ be a given real number. As $\alpha^\prime$ is Riemann-integrable on $[a, b]$, so there exists a partition $P = \left\{ \ x_0, \ldots, x_n \ \right\}$ of $[a, b]$ such that $$ U(P, \alpha^\prime) - L(P, \alpha^\prime) < \frac{\varepsilon}{2M}. \tag{1} $$

Now as $\alpha^\prime$ exists on $[a, b]$, so, For each $i \in \{ 1, \ldots, n \}$, the function $\alpha$ is continuous on $\left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$ and differentiable on $\left( x_{i-1}, x_i \right)$, and hence there exists a point $t_i \in \left( x_{i-1}, x_i \right)$ such that $$ \alpha \left( x_i \right) - \alpha \left( x_{i-1} \right) = \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \left( x_i - x_{i-1} \right); $$ that is, $$ \Delta \alpha_i = \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \Delta x_i \tag{2} $$ for each $i = 1, \ldots, n$.

And, for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, n \}$, if $s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, then, as $t_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$ also, so we conclude that $$\tag{3a} m_i ( \alpha^\prime ) \leq \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \leq M_i (\alpha^\prime), $$ and
$$\tag{3b} m_i (\alpha^\prime) \leq \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \leq M_i ( \alpha^\prime) , $$ where $$ m_i ( \alpha^\prime ) \colon= \inf \left\{ \ \alpha^\prime (x) \ \colon \ x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \ \right\}, $$ and $$ M_i ( \alpha^\prime) \colon= \sup \left\{ \ \alpha^\prime (x) \ \colon \ x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \ \right\};$$ now (3b) implies that $$ \tag{3c} - M_i ( \alpha^\prime ) \leq - \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \leq - m_i (\alpha^\prime), $$ and upon adding (3c) to (3a), we obtain $$ m_i ( \alpha^\prime ) - M_i( \alpha^\prime) \leq \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \leq M_i ( \alpha^\prime) - m_i( \alpha^\prime), $$ which implies that $$ \left\lvert \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \right\rvert \leq M_i ( \alpha^\prime) - m_i( \alpha^\prime), \tag{3d} $$ and, as $\Delta x_i = x_i - x_{i-1} \geq 0$, so (3d) yields $$ \left\lvert \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \right\rvert \Delta x_i \leq \left[ M_i ( \alpha^\prime) - m_i( \alpha^\prime) \right] \Delta x_i, \tag{3e} $$ for each $i = 1, \ldots, n$.

Now upon adding together all the inequalities in (3e), we get $$ \sum_{i=1}^n \left\lvert \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \right\rvert \Delta x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^n \left[ M_i ( \alpha^\prime) - m_i( \alpha^\prime) \right] \Delta x_i, $$ that is, $$ \sum_{i=1}^n \left\lvert \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \right\rvert \Delta x_i \leq U(P, \alpha^\prime) - L(P, \alpha^\prime). \tag{3} $$

From (1) and (3) we get $$ \sum_{i=1}^n \left\lvert \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \right\rvert \Delta x_i < \frac{\varepsilon}{2M}, \tag{4} $$ for any points $s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$; the points $t_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$ are as given in (2) above.

Now from (2) we see that $$ \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i = \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \Delta x_i, \tag{5a} $$ where the points $s_i$ and $t_i$, for each $i \in \{ 1, \ldots, n \}$, are as in (4) above.

So \begin{align} \left\lvert \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i - \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \Delta x_i \right\rvert &= \left\lvert \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) \Delta x_i - \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \Delta x_i \right\rvert \\ & \qquad \qquad \mbox{ [ by (5a) ] } \\ &= \left\lvert \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \left[ \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \right] \Delta x_i \right\rvert \\ &\leq \sum_{i=1}^n \left\lvert f \left( s_i \right) \left[ \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \right] \Delta x_i \right\rvert \\ &= \sum_{i=1}^n \left\lvert f \left( s_i \right) \right\rvert \left\lvert \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \right\rvert \Delta x_i \\ &\leq \sum_{i=1}^n M \left\lvert \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \right\rvert \Delta x_i \\ & \qquad \qquad \mbox{ [ using (0) above ] } \\ &= M \sum_{i=1}^n \left\lvert \alpha^\prime \left( t_i \right) - \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \right\rvert \Delta x_i \\ &< M \frac{\varepsilon}{2M} \qquad \mbox{ [ using (4) above ] } \\ &= \frac{\varepsilon}{2}. \end{align}

Thus we have shown that $$ \left\lvert \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i - \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \Delta x_i \right\rvert < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{5} $$ for any points $s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$.

From (5) we can conclude that, for any points $s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, for each $i \in \{ 1, \ldots, n\}$, we have $$ \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i - \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \Delta x_i < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, $$ and so \begin{align} \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i &< \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \Delta x_i + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \\ &\leq U( P, f \alpha^\prime) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{6a} \end{align} for any point $s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, for each $i \in \{ 1, \ldots, n \}$.

Now we show that $$ U(P, f, \alpha) = \sup \left\{ \ \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i \colon \ s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right] \mbox{ for each } i = 1, \ldots, n \ \right\}. \tag{6b} $$

For each $i \in \{ 1, \ldots, n \}$, let $$M_i(f) \colon= \sup \left\{ \ f(x) \ \colon \ x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \ \right\}; \tag{6c} $$ now as $ f \left( s_i \right) \leq M_i (f)$ and as $\alpha$ is a monotonically increasing function on $[a, b]$ and hence also on $\left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, so $$ \Delta \alpha_i = \alpha \left( x_i \right) - \alpha \left( x_{i-1} \right) \geq 0,$$ and therefore $ f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i \leq M_i(f) \Delta \alpha_i$ for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, n \}$, which implies that $$ \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^n M_i(f) \Delta \alpha_i = U(P, f, \alpha). $$ Thus $U(P, f, \alpha)$ is an upper bound of the set in (6b).

If $\alpha$ is constant on the interval $[a, b]$, then, for each $i = 1, \ldots, n$, we have $\Delta \alpha_i = 0$ and so all the sums in the set in (6b) are zero, and also $U(P, f, \alpha) = 0$, and so (6b) holds.

So let's assume that $\alpha$ is not constant on the interval $[a, b]$. Then there exists a sub-interval $\left[ x_{k-1}, x_k \right]$ (for some $k = 1, \ldots, n$) such that $$\Delta \alpha_k = \alpha\left( x_k \right) - \alpha\left( x_{k-1} \right) > 0. \tag{*}$$

As $\varepsilon > 0$ and as $\alpha$ is monotonically increasing on $[a, b]$, so, for each $i \in \{ 1, \ldots, n \}$, we have $$ M_i(f) - \frac{\varepsilon}{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1 } < M_i(f),$$ and thus the real number $ M_i(f) - \frac{\varepsilon}{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1 } $ is not an upper bound of the set in (6c), which implies that there exists a point $p_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$ such that $$ M_i(f) - \frac{\varepsilon}{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1 } < f\left(p_i\right),$$ and since $\Delta \alpha_i \geq 0$, we have $$ \left[ M_i(f) - \frac{\varepsilon}{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1 } \right] \Delta \alpha_i \leq f\left(p_i\right) \Delta \alpha_i$$ for each $i = 1, \ldots, n$; but for $i= k$ we have $$ \left[ M_k(f) - \frac{\varepsilon}{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1 } \right] \Delta \alpha_k < f\left(p_k\right) \Delta \alpha_k;$$ therefore, $$ \sum_{i=1}^n \left[ M_i(f) - \frac{\varepsilon}{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1 } \right] \Delta \alpha_i < \sum_{i=1}^n f\left(p_i\right) \Delta \alpha_i,$$ that is, $$ \sum_{i=1}^n M_i(f) \Delta \alpha_i - \frac{\varepsilon }{\alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1 } \left[ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) \right] < \sum_{i=1}^n f\left(p_i\right) \Delta \alpha_i, $$ which is the same as $$ U(P, f, \alpha) - \frac{\varepsilon }{\alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1 } \left[ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) \right] < \sum_{i=1}^n f\left(p_i\right) \Delta \alpha_i. \tag{6d} $$

But, as $a \leq b$ and as $\alpha$ is monotonically increasing, so $$ \alpha(a) \leq \alpha(b), $$ which implies that $$ 0 \leq \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) < \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1, $$ and so $$ 0 \leq \frac{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) }{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) + 1 } < 1, $$ which then implies that $$ 0 \leq \frac{ \varepsilon }{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) +1 } \left[ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) \right] < \varepsilon, $$ and hence $$ - \varepsilon < - \frac{ \varepsilon }{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) +1 } \left[ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) \right] \leq 0, $$ which implies that $$ U(P, f, \alpha) - \varepsilon < U(P, f, \alpha) - \frac{ \varepsilon }{ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) +1 } \left[ \alpha(b) - \alpha(a) \right] , \tag{6e} $$

Now from (6d) and (6e) we have $$ U(P, f, \alpha) - \varepsilon < \sum_{i=1}^n f\left(p_i\right) \Delta \alpha_i, $$ which shows that no real number less than $U(P, f, \alpha)$ can be an upper bound of the set in (6b).

Thus the real number $U(P, f, \alpha)$ is an upper bound of the set in (6b), but no real number less than $U(P, f, \alpha)$ is an upper bound of that set. Therefore (6b) holds.

Now from (6a) we see that the real number $U(P, f \alpha^\prime) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ is an upper bound for the set in (6b), and from (6b) we know that $U(P, f, \alpha)$ is the least upper bound of this very set, so from (6a) and (6b) we can conclude that $$ U(P, f, \alpha) \leq U(P, f \alpha^\prime) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}. \tag{6} $$

Again from (5) we obtain $$ \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \Delta x_i - \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i < \frac{\varepsilon}{2},$$ which implies that \begin{align} \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \Delta x_i &< \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \Delta \alpha_i + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \\ &\leq U(P, f, \alpha) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{7a} \end{align} for any point $s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right]$, for each $i = 1, \ldots, n$.

We can show that $$ U(P, f\alpha^\prime) = \sup \left\{ \ \sum_{i=1}^n f \left( s_i \right) \alpha^\prime \left( s_i \right) \Delta x_i \ \colon \ s_i \in \left[ x_{i-1}, x_i \right] \mbox{ for each } i = 1, \ldots, n \ \right\}. \tag{7b} $$

From (7a) and (7b) we can conclude that $$ U(P, f\alpha^\prime) \leq U(P, f, \alpha) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}. \tag{7} $$

Now if $Q$ be any partition of $[a, b]$ such that $Q \supset P$, then (by Theorem 6.4 in Baby Rudin, 3rd edition) we have $$ L(P, \alpha^\prime) \leq L(Q, \alpha^\prime) \leq U(Q, \alpha^\prime) \leq U(P, \alpha^\prime), $$ which implies that $$ U(Q, \alpha^\prime) - L(Q, \alpha^\prime) \leq U(P, \alpha^\prime) - L(P, \alpha^\prime), $$ and this together with (1) implies that (1) also holds for $Q$, and therefore both (6) and (7) also hold for $Q$.

That is, if $Q$ is any refinement of $P$, then $$ U(Q, f, \alpha) \leq U(Q, f \alpha^\prime) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{6*} $$ and $$ U( Q, f\alpha^\prime) \leq U(Q, f, \alpha) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}. \tag{7*} $$

Now let's suppose that $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f \,d \alpha - \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) \,d x > \varepsilon. \tag{8a} $$

As $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) \,dx + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} > \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) \,dx, $$ so there exists a partition $P_1$ of $[a, b]$ such that $$ U\left( P_1, f \alpha^\prime \right) < \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{8b} $$ which implies $$- U\left( P_1, f \alpha^\prime \right) > - \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - \frac{\varepsilon}{2},$$ and so by (8a) we obtain \begin{align} \overline{\int}_a^b f d \alpha - U \left( P_1, f \alpha^\prime \right) &> \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha - \int_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \\ &> \varepsilon - \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \\ &= \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \end{align} which implies that $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f d \alpha - U \left( P_1, f \alpha^\prime \right) > \frac{\varepsilon}{2}. \tag{8c} $$
Now if $Q$ is any partition of $[a, b]$ such that $Q \supset P_1$, then (by Theorem 6.4 in Baby Rudin) $$ U(Q, f\alpha^\prime) \leq U \left( P_1, f\alpha^\prime \right),$$ and this together with (8b) implies that $$ U(Q, f\alpha^\prime) < \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{8b*} $$ from which we obtain $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha - U(Q, f \alpha^\prime ) > \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{8c*} $$ in just the same way as we have obtained (8c) from (8b).

Now let $Q$ be any partition of $[a, b]$ such that $Q \supset P$ and $Q \supset P_1$. Then (8c*) holds for this $Q$ as well.

But as $$ U(Q, f, \alpha) \geq \overline{\int}_a^b f d \alpha, $$ so (8c*) gives $$ U(Q, f, \alpha) - U \left( Q, f \alpha^\prime \right) \geq \overline{\int}_a^b f d \alpha - U \left( Q, f \alpha^\prime \right) > \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, $$
which implies $$ U(Q, f, \alpha) - U \left( Q, f \alpha^\prime \right) > \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, $$
and so $$ U(Q, f, \alpha) > U \left( Q, f \alpha^\prime \right) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, $$
which contradicts (6*). Therefore (8a) cannot hold, and so $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha - \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx \leq \varepsilon. \tag{8} $$

Now let's suppose that $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha > \varepsilon. \tag{9a}$$ As $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} > \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha, $$ so there exists a partition $P_2$ of $[a, b]$ such that $$ U \left( P_2, f, \alpha \right) < \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{9b} $$ which implies that $$ - U \left( P_2, f, \alpha \right) > - \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha - \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, $$ which together with (9a) gives \begin{align} \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - U \left( P_2, f, \alpha \right) &> \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - \int_a^b f d\alpha - \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \\ &> \varepsilon - \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \\ &= \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \end{align} which implies that $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - U \left( P_2, f, \alpha \right) > \frac{\varepsilon}{2}. \tag{9c} $$

Now if $Q$ is any partition of $[a, b]$ such that $Q \supset P_2$, then (by Theorem 6.4 in Baby Rudin) $$ U(Q, f, \alpha) \leq U \left( P_2, f, \alpha \right), $$ which together with (9b) yields $$ U(Q, f, \alpha) < \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{9b*} $$ and then we obtain $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - U ( Q, f, \alpha ) > \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \tag{9c*} $$ in just the same way as we have obtained (9c) from (9b).

Now let $Q$ be any partition of $[a, b]$ such that $Q \supset P$ and $Q \supset P_2$. Then (9c*) holds for this $Q$.

But as $$ U ( Q, f \alpha^\prime) \geq \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx, $$ so (9c*) gives $$ U(Q, f \alpha^\prime ) - U(Q, f, \alpha) \geq \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime (x) dx - U(Q, f, \alpha) > \frac{\varepsilon}{2},$$ which implies $$ U(Q, f \alpha^\prime ) - U(Q, f, \alpha) > \frac{\varepsilon}{2},$$ and so $$ U(Q, f \alpha^\prime ) > U(Q, f, \alpha) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2},$$ which contradicts (7*).

Thus (9a) cannot hold, and so we can conclude that $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha \leq \varepsilon. \tag{9}$$

Now from (8) and (9) we can conclude that $$\left\lvert \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha \right\rvert \leq \varepsilon $$ for any real number $\varepsilon > 0$. Hence $$\left\lvert \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx - \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha \right\rvert = 0, $$ which implies that $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha = \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx. \tag{A} $$

An analogous argument gives $$ \underline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha = \underline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime (x) dx. \tag{B} $$

Now suppose $f \in \mathscr{R}(\alpha)$ on $[a, b]$. Then $$ \underline{\int}_a^b f d\alpha = \overline{\int}_a^b f d \alpha, $$ and then (A) and (B) together imply $$ \underline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx = \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx, $$ showing that $f\alpha^\prime \in \mathscr{R}$ on $[a, b]$.

Conversely, suppose $f \alpha^\prime \in \mathscr{R}$ on $[a, b]$. Then $$ \underline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx = \overline{\int}_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx, $$ and then (A) and (B) together imply $$ \underline{\int}_a^b f d \alpha = \overline{\int}_a^b f d \alpha , $$ showing that $f \in \mathscr{R}(\alpha)$ on $[a, b]$.

Finally, we assume that $f \in \mathscr{R}(\alpha)$ on $[a, b]$ --- which (as we have just shown) is equivalent to assuming that $f \alpha^\prime \in \mathscr{R}$ on $[a, b]$ --- and then find from (A) and (B) that $$ \int_a^b f d\alpha = \int_a^b f(x) \alpha^\prime(x) dx, $$ as required.

Is my rendering of Rudin's proof correct? If not, then where have I erred?

I admit that my presentation is very very, very lengthy, but it is to demonstrate my reasoning clearly and fully enough.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy thank you for taking the time going through my rather lengthy post. Have I managed to get the proof correctly elaborated? What is it that you've edited in my post? $\endgroup$ – Saaqib Mahmood Jun 23 '17 at 11:32
  • $\begingroup$ So far just typesetting issues, such as changing $f d\alpha$ to $f\,d\alpha.$ Possibly I'll go through the math a bit later. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Jun 23 '17 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy I've just editted my post, fixing some more issues. Can you please have a careful look through my post now? $\endgroup$ – Saaqib Mahmood Jul 14 '17 at 11:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It looks fine. Well done. Math newbie appreciates your teaching. $\endgroup$ – High GPA Aug 1 '17 at 8:17
1
$\begingroup$

I've checked your proof, and to the best of my knowledge, it's correct. I really appreciate your spirit to get the proof fully elaborated.

However, I still have a suggestion about your proof on (A), which is $$\overline{\int}_a^bfd\alpha=\overline{\int}_a^bf(x)\alpha'(x)dx$$ You can simply assume they are not equal, and let$$|\overline{\int}_a^bfd\alpha-\overline{\int}_a^bf(x)\alpha'(x)dx|=\varepsilon_0>0$$ Meanwhile we know$$|U(Q,f,\alpha)-U(Q,f\alpha')|<\varepsilon/2$$ holds for any partition Q that satisfies (1).

Now let $\varepsilon$ to be a real number less than $\varepsilon_0/3$, and accordingly Q to be the partition satisfies (1). Due to the definition of upper integrals, we know there are two partitions Q' and Q'' that satisfy$$|U(Q',f,\alpha)-\overline{\int}_a^bfd\alpha|<\varepsilon_0/3$$ and$$|U(Q'',f\alpha')-\overline{\int}_a^bf(x)\alpha'(x)dx|<\varepsilon_0/3$$

Let P to be the common refinement of partitions Q, Q' and Q''. We shall see that P satisfies$$B\triangleq|U(P,f,\alpha)-U(P,f\alpha')|<\varepsilon/2\leq\varepsilon_0/6$$ $$A\triangleq|U(P,f,\alpha)-\overline{\int}_a^bfd\alpha|<\varepsilon_0/3$$ $$C\triangleq|U(P,f\alpha')-\overline{\int}_a^bf(x)\alpha'(x)dx|<\varepsilon_0/3$$ But this means that $$\varepsilon_0=|\overline{\int}_a^bfd\alpha-\overline{\int}_a^bf(x)\alpha'(x)dx|\leq A+B+C<5\varepsilon_0/6$$ in contradiction to our hypothesis.

Maybe this proof can simplify yours to some extent.

$\endgroup$

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.