This question is inspired by a previous question. It was shown that, for all function $f \in \mathcal{C} ([0, 1])$,

$$ \lim_{n \to + \infty} \sum_{k=0}^{n} f \left( \frac{k}{n+1} \right) - \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f \left( \frac{k}{n} \right) = \int_0^1 f (x) \ dx.$$

A stronger statement would be that there exists some constant $a(f)$ such that:

$$\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f \left( \frac{k}{n} \right) = n \int_0^1 f (x) \ dx + a(f) + o(1),$$

or, in other words, that there is an asymptotic development at order $1$ of the Riemann sums:

$$\frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f \left( \frac{k}{n} \right) = \int_0^1 f (x) \ dx + \frac{a(f)}{n} + o(n^{-1}).$$

Given $f$, can we always find such a constant $a(f)$? If this is false, can we find a counter-example? If this is true, can $a(f)$ be written explicitely?

I have had a quick look at the litterature, but most asymptotics for the Riemann sums involve different meshes, which depend on the function $f$.


On the subspace $\mathcal{C}^1([0,1])$ of continuously differentiable functions, we have

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right) - n\int_0^1 f(x)\,dx = \frac{f(0) - f(1)}{2}.$$

We can see that by computing

$$\begin{align} &\Biggl\lvert\frac12\left(f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right) + f\left(\frac{k+1}{n}\right)\right) - n\int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n} f(x)\,dx\Biggr\rvert\\ &\qquad = \frac{n}{2}\left\lvert \int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n} \left(f\left(\frac{k+1}{n}\right)-f(x)\right) - \left(f(x) - f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)\right)\,dx\right\rvert\\ &\qquad = \frac{n}{2}\left\lvert\int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n}\int_x^{(k+1)/n} f'(t)\,dt - \int_{k/n}^x f'(t)\,dt\,dx\right\rvert\\ &\qquad = \frac{n}{2}\left\lvert\int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n}\left(t-\frac{k}{n}\right)f'(t) - \left(\frac{k+1}{n}-t\right)f'(t)\,dt\right\rvert\\ &\qquad = n\left\lvert\int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n} \left(t-\frac{k+\frac12}{n}\right)f'(t)\,dt\right\rvert\\ &\qquad = n\left\lvert\int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n} \left(t-\frac{k+\frac12}{n}\right)\left(f'(t)- f'\left(\frac{k+\frac12}{n}\right)\right)\,dt\right\rvert\\ &\qquad \leqslant n \cdot\omega_{f'}\left(\frac{1}{2n}\right) \int_{k/n}^{(k+1)/n} \left\lvert t-\frac{k+\frac12}{n}\right\rvert\,dt\\ &\qquad = \frac{1}{4n}\cdot\omega_{f'}\left(\frac{1}{2n}\right), \end{align}$$


$$\omega_{f'}(\delta) = \sup \left\lbrace \lvert f'(s) - f'(t)\rvert : s,t\in [0,1], \lvert s-t\rvert \leqslant \delta\right\rbrace$$

is a modulus of continuity of $f'$. Summing up we obtain

$$\left\lvert \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right) - \frac{f(0)-f(1)}{2} - n\int_0^1 f(x)\,dx\right\rvert \leqslant \frac14 \cdot\omega_{f'}\left(\frac{1}{2n}\right),$$

and the continuity of $f'$ means $\lim\limits_{\delta\searrow 0} \omega_{f'}(\delta) = 0$.

But there is no map $\alpha \colon \mathcal{C}([0,1]) \to \mathbb{C}$ such that for every $f \in \mathcal{C}([0,1])$ we have

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right) - n\int_0^1 f(x)\,dx = \alpha(f),$$

or equivalently

$$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right) = \int_0^1 f(x)\,dx + \frac{\alpha(f)}{n} + o\left(\frac1n\right).$$

For if there were, since $\mathcal{C}([0,1])$ is a Banach space under the supremum norm, the Banach-Steinhaus theorem (uniform boundedness principle) would assert that the family

$$T_n \colon f \mapsto \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right) - n\int_0^1 f(x)\,dx$$

is equicontinuous, or norm-bounded.

However, it is easy to see that

$$\lVert T_n\rVert = 2n.$$

Thus the set of $f \in \mathcal{C}([0,1])$ such that

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right) - n\int_0^1 f(x)\,dx$$

exists is meagre (it is, however, strictly larger than $\mathcal{C}^1([0,1])$).

Note that the previous question only considered continuously differentiable functions, i.e. $\mathcal{C}^1([0,1])$. The Banach-Steinhaus theorem shows that

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{k=0}^n f\left(\frac{k}{n+1}\right) - \underbrace{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)}_{S_n(f)}$$

does not exist for all $f\in\mathcal{C}([0,1])$, since $\lVert S_{n+1} - S_n\rVert = 2n-1$ is not bounded.

  • $\begingroup$ Very nice answer. $\endgroup$ – JohnD Dec 22 '13 at 14:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much, it completely answer my question. I didn't think at all about using functionnal analysis tools à la Banach-Steinhaus; that's very nice. $\endgroup$ – D. Thomine Dec 22 '13 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer: I see $||T_n|| \leqslant 2n$. How do you show the norm equals $2n$, i.e for what $f \in C([0,1])$ with $\sup_{[0,1]} |f(x)| = 1$, do we have $|T_n f| = 2n$? Thanks. $\endgroup$ – RRL May 23 '16 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ @RRL The norm is not attained, we have $\lvert T_n f\rvert < 2n \lVert f\rVert$ for all $f \neq 0$ (and all $n \in \mathbb{N}\setminus \{0\}$). But we can come arbitrarily close. Fix $n$, pick $0 < \varepsilon < \frac{1}{2n}$ and consider the function $f_{n,\varepsilon}$ with $f_{n,\varepsilon}(k/n) = 1$ for $k \in \{0,1,\dotsc,n\}$, $f_{n,\varepsilon}(x) = -1$ for $\frac{k}{n} + \varepsilon \leqslant x \leqslant \frac{k+1}{n}-\varepsilon$, $0 \leqslant k < n$, and that linearly interpolates between $k/n$ and $k/n \pm \varepsilon$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer May 24 '16 at 8:41
  • $\begingroup$ Then $\int_0^1 f_{n,\varepsilon}(x)\,dx = -1 + 2n\varepsilon$, so $T_n f_{n,\varepsilon} = n + n(1-2n\varepsilon) = 2n - 2n^2\varepsilon$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer May 24 '16 at 8:41

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.