4
$\begingroup$

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In terms of Riemann integrability: If we are taking into consideration Riemann integrals on a closed interval, then any continuous function is integrable.

In terms of improper integrals: continuity does not imply integrability.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The answers below are correct but I want to add something, given $f$ bounded on a compact interval $I$ then $f$ is Riemann integrable on $I$ if and only if it is continuous almost everywhere. $\endgroup$ – Holo Jun 20 '18 at 8:27
  • $\begingroup$ @holo useful! Here's a link to a discussion elsewhere on this site, though it just has pointers to other things.math.stackexchange.com/questions/238139/… $\endgroup$ – Joe Corneli Aug 7 '18 at 18:00
11
$\begingroup$

Theorem: A continuous function $f: [a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is Riemann integrable.

Proof:

Let $f: [a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function. Any function that is continuous on a compact set—such as our $f$ on $[a,b]$—is also uniformly continuous on that set$^\dagger$. This is to say, given a $\mu > 0$, we are guaranteed a $\delta > 0$ such that $|x - y| < \delta \implies |f(x) - f(y)| < \mu$ for any $x, y \in [a,b]$. Consider a partition $\mathcal{P}$ of $[a, b]$ into $n$ equal intervals of width $\displaystyle \frac{b-a}{n}$, with $n$ large enough so that $\displaystyle \frac{b-a}{n} < \delta$. Computing the difference between the upper and lower sums: \begin{align*} U(f, \mathcal{P}) - L(f, \mathcal{P}) &= \left(x_k - x_{k-1} \right) \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \Big[\operatorname{sup}\{f(x) | x \in [x_{k-1}, x_k] \} - \operatorname{inf} \{f(x) | x \in [x_{k-1}, x_k] \} \Big] \\ & \leq \left( \frac{b-a}{n} \right) \cdot n \cdot \mu \ = \ (b-a)\mu \end{align*} Given an $\varepsilon > 0$, choose $\mu$ small enough so that $\displaystyle \mu < \frac{\varepsilon}{(b-a)}$. Then $U(f, \mathcal{P}) - L(f, \mathcal{P}) < \varepsilon$, and we conclude $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a,b]$.


$^\dagger$ See here for further discussion.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ so are my statements correct? $\endgroup$ – Alicia White Jun 20 '18 at 8:01
  • $\begingroup$ Yes indeed. The first is correct, and so is the second assuming by "integrable" you mean "the improper integral converges to a finite value". Fred's example of $\displaystyle \int_1^\infty 1/x \ \text{d}x$ works since $\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \ln(x) = \infty$. $\endgroup$ – Kaj Hansen Jun 20 '18 at 8:04
3
$\begingroup$

It is worthwhile to give another proof for Riemann integrability of functions which are continuous on a closed interval.

The proof below is taken from Calculus by Spivak and I must say it is novel enough. It does not make use of uniform continuity bur rather invokes mean value theorem for derivatives.

The central idea is to show that if $f:[a, b] \to\mathbb {R} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ then the upper and lower Darboux integrals of $f$ on $[a, b] $ are equal ie $$\overline{\int} _{a} ^{b} f(x) \, dx=\underline{\int} _{a} ^{b} f(x) \, dx$$ Now to establish the above identity Spivak considers the upper Darboux integrals as a function of the upper limit of integration. Thus following Spivak we consider the function $$J(x) =\overline{\int} _{a}^{x} f(t) \, dt$$ and show that $J'(x) =f(x) $ for all $x\in[a, b] $. Similarly we have $j'(x) =f(x) $ for all $x\in[a, b] $ where $$j(x) =\underline{\int} _{a} ^{x} f(t) \, dt$$ The derivative of function $F=J-j$ vanishes everywhere on $[a, b] $ and $F(a) =0$ so that $F$ vanishes on whole of $[a, b] $.

The key point which needs to be established here is the relation $$J'(x) =f(x) =j'(x), \forall x\in[a, b] $$ and the proof is almost the same as that of first fundamental theorem of calculus. The upper Darboux integrals enjoy the same additive property as Riemann integrals and we have $$J(x+h) - J(x) =\overline{\int} _{x} ^{x+h} f(t) \, dt$$ Further given $\epsilon >0$ the continuity of $f$ at $x$ ensures the existence of a $\delta>0$ such that $$f(x) - \epsilon<f(t) <f(x) +\epsilon$$ whenever $t\in(x-\delta, x+\delta) $. If $0<h<\delta$ then the above inequality yields $$h(f(x) - \epsilon) \leq J(x+h) - J(x) \leq h(f(x) +\epsilon) $$ or $$\left|\frac{J(x+h) - J(x)} {h} - f(x) \right|\leq \epsilon$$ The same identity holds even when $-\delta<h<0$ and hence by definition of derivative we have $J'(x) =f(x) $. The proof for $j'(x) =f(x) $ is exactly the same (using lower Darboux integrals).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why the downvote? $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Jun 26 '18 at 12:40
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think such an answer deserves a downvote. One doesn't need uniform continuity because the typical addition and comparison properties are valid also for upper and lower integrals. $\endgroup$ – Tony Piccolo Jun 26 '18 at 17:57
2
$\begingroup$

$f(x)=1/x$ is continuous on $[1, \infty)$, but $\int_1^{\infty} f(x) dx = \infty$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So does that mean my statements are correct? $\endgroup$ – Alicia White Jun 20 '18 at 7:48
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This is not a Riemann integral, though. $\endgroup$ – egreg Jun 20 '18 at 9:15
  • $\begingroup$ Why the downvote ???? In my example the functin $f$ is continuous on $[1, \infty)$ but not integrable over $[1, \infty)$. $\endgroup$ – Fred Jun 20 '18 at 11:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Fred This is an improper Riemann integral. Usually the Riemann integral (in the narrow sense) is only defined on an interval $[a, b]$. $\endgroup$ – ComFreek Jun 20 '18 at 12:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $[1, \infty)$ is not a closed interval. The questions asks about Riemann integrals on closed intervals, so the counterexample in this answer is not relevant to the question. $\endgroup$ – pts Jun 20 '18 at 13:13

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.