I have seen a few solutions to this problem, but they all mention "countable number of discontinuities" or something to that effect. I'm not familiar with such a concept, so I'm trying to prove it in a different manner.

I am looking for pointers on how to proceed with this proof in this fashion, and where I went wrong.

Definition of Riemann Integrable

Let $f:[a,b]\to \mathbb{R}$ be a bounded function. Then $f$ is integrable if and only if there is a sequence of partitions ${P_n}$ of the interval $[a,b]$ such that $$\lim\limits_{n\to \infty} [U(f,P_n) - L(f,P_n)] = 0$$ Moreover, for any such sequence of partitions, $$\lim\limits_{n\to \infty} L(f,P_n) = \lim\limits_{n\to \infty} U(f,P_n) = \int_a^b f.$$


Let $f:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}$ be defined by

$$f(x) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{q} & x = \frac{p}{q}, \text{ p and q coprime}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} $$ Let $P_n$ be the regular partition of $\left[ 0, \frac{1}{2} \right]$ with $n$ partition points.

Then the partition point $x_i \in P_n$ is given by $$x_i = \frac{i}{2n}$$

On an arbitrary partition interval $I = [x_{i-1}, x_i]$ of $\left[ 0, \frac{1}{2} \right]$, the maximum $M_i$ of $f(x)$ is $x_i$.

I suspect the statement about the maximum of the interval to be true, but I do not know how to prove it.

The minimum $m_i$ of $f(x)$ is $0$ because the irrationals are dense in $\mathbb{R}$, so there is always an irrational in the interval, and all values of $f(x)$ are nonnegative.

Then the Lower Darboux Sum is $0$ for every partition interval, and the Upper Darboux Sum is given by $$U(f,P_n) = \sum_{i=1}^n M_i (x_i - x_{i-1}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{i}{2n}\left( \frac{i}{2n} - \frac{i-1}{2n} \right) = \frac{1}{4n^2}\sum_{i=1}^n i$$ $$U(f,P_n) = \frac{1}{4n^2} \frac{n(n+1)}{2} = \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{8n}$$

Here lies my problem - this sum would ideally go to $0$ as $n\to \infty$, but it does not. Perhaps my choice for the maximum was poor.

The rest of the proof would be, if the above limit worked out properly, that I would use another partition for $\left[ \frac{1}{2}, 1 \right]$, and then by linearity say that the Upper Darboux Sum is the sum of the two, and I would get $0$, which is the Lower Darboux Sum, and all would be well.


1 Answer 1


The statement about the maximum is false. As a result you are mistakenly computing an upper sum for $f(x) = x$ where, of course, the integral over $[0,1/2]$ is $1/8$.

For a counterexample to your statement, take $n = 4$ and $[x_{i-1},x_i] = \left[\frac{2}{8}, \frac{3}{8}\right]$.

Note that $f(x_{i-1}) = \frac{1}{4}$, since $\frac{2}{8} = \frac{1}{4}$ in lowest terms, and $f(x_i) = \frac{1}{8}$, since $\frac{3}{8}$ is already in lowest terms. Here we have $f(x_{i-1}) > f(x_i)$.

A proof of integrability is given here using upper and lower Darboux sums without mentioning "countable number of discontinuities."


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .