I'm trying to show that:

$$\overline{I}:=\inf _P S(f;P)=\lim_{\lambda (P)\to 0}S(f;P)$$

where $P$ is a generic partition (made by $n$ points) of the interval $[a,b]$, $f$ is bounded on $[a,b]$, $S(f;P):=\sum _{i=1}^n\sup_{\Delta_i}f(x) \cdot \Delta x_i $ upper Darboux sum of $f$ on partition $P$ with mesh $\lambda (P)$.

Facts already known and proved:

a) $s(f;P_1):=\sum _{i=1}^{n_1}\inf_{\Delta_i}f(x) \cdot \Delta x_i \leq S(f;P_2)$, for all partitions $P_1$ and $P_2$.

b) $0\leq S(f;P)-S(f;\widetilde{P})\leq \omega (f;[a,b])\cdot (\Delta x_{k_1}+...+\Delta x_{k_m}) $, where $\widetilde{P} $ is a generic refinement of $P$, $ \omega (f;[a,b]):=\sup _{x',x'' \in [a,b]}|f(x')-f(x'')| $ and $\Delta x_{k_1},...,\Delta x_{k_m} $ are all the intervals of $P$ which contain points only in $\widetilde{P} $.

My attempt to demonstrate the statement:

$ \overline{I} $ is well defined thanks to a). Being an $\inf $, this implies that $\forall \epsilon >0$ there exists a partition $P_\epsilon $ such that:

$$\overline{I} \leq S(f;P_\epsilon) \leq \overline{I} + \epsilon$$

to conclude, it would be enough for me to show that any partition $ P $ with a mesh that is narrower than that of $ P_\epsilon $ leads to $S(f;P) \leq S(f;P_\epsilon) $, but all I managed to get (using also b)) was this:

$$S(f;P) \leq S(f;P_\epsilon) +\omega (f;[a,b])\cdot m\cdot \lambda (P)$$

where $m$ is the number of points in $P_{\epsilon} $ and $\lambda (P) $ is the mesh of the new partition $P$.

I can't do better. A little help, please?

Thanks in advance.

  • $\begingroup$ See here for a proof when the integral exists. The part of the argument for the upper sums converging to the upper Darboux integral is all you need for this question. $\endgroup$ – RRL Mar 17 '19 at 13:12
  • $\begingroup$ You will see you are almost there. Take the partition $P$ with sufficiently small mesh and form a common refinement with $P_\epsilon$ to make the needed estimates. $\endgroup$ – RRL Mar 17 '19 at 13:34
  • $\begingroup$ I have not understood the way I should follow. I already obtained the last inequality using a refinement of $P_\epsilon$. $\endgroup$ – Nameless Mar 17 '19 at 13:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See math.stackexchange.com/a/2047959/72031 $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Mar 18 '19 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting, thank you @ParamanandSingh. $\endgroup$ – Nameless Mar 19 '19 at 20:51

You are on the right track. To help you finish, recall that it is to be shown for any $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P$ such that $|S(f;P) - \bar{I}| < \epsilon$ or equivalently

$$\tag{*}\bar{I} \leqslant S(f;P) \leqslant \bar{I} + \epsilon,$$

when $\lambda(P) < \delta$.

As you showed, now using $\epsilon/2$ instead of $\epsilon$, there exists a partition $P_\epsilon$ such that

$$\overline{I} \leqslant S(f;P_\epsilon) \leqslant \overline{I} + \frac{\epsilon}{2}$$

We want to introduce any partition $P$, not necessarily a refinement of $P_\epsilon$, and produce $\delta$ such that (*) is satisfied if $\lambda(P) < \delta$. Next, we construct a partition $\widetilde{P}$ that is a common refinement of $P$ and $P_\epsilon$ by adding the $m$ interior points of $P_\epsilon$ to $P$. Now, as you came close to reasoning, it follows that

$$S(f;P) \leqslant S(f;\widetilde{P}) + \omega (f;[a,b])\cdot m\cdot \lambda (P)$$

Further insight into why this is true can be obtained either by drawing a picture or following my argument here.

Since $\widetilde{P}$ is a refinement of $P_\epsilon$, we have $S(f;\widetilde{P}) \leqslant S(f;P_\epsilon)$, and it follows that

$$S(f;P) \leqslant S(f;P_\epsilon) + \omega (f;[a,b])\cdot m\cdot \lambda (P) \leqslant \overline{I} + \frac{\epsilon}{2}+ \omega (f;[a,b])\cdot m\cdot \lambda (P)$$

By choosing $\delta = \epsilon/ (2 \cdot m \cdot \omega (f;[a,b]))$, it follows that if $\lambda(P) < \delta$, then

$$\bar{I} \leqslant S(f;P) \leqslant \bar{I} + \epsilon$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. (+1) $\endgroup$ – Nameless Mar 19 '19 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Nameless: You're welcome. $\endgroup$ – RRL Mar 19 '19 at 22:09

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.