7
$\begingroup$

Is there a real-valued function on a closed bounded nonempty interval that is not Riemann integrable, but is "Ito-Riemann" integrable, that is: if the sampling point is always the left-end point of the subinterval in the partition?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ have you checked out this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/426786/… $\endgroup$ – Betty Mock Feb 20 '14 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ is that to suggest a generic path of a BM as an example? $\endgroup$ – user66081 Feb 20 '14 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ @user66081 No, that doesn't make sense. Since a Brownian motion has continuous sample paths, its paths are in particular Riemann integrable. $\endgroup$ – saz Feb 23 '14 at 12:39
8
+50
$\begingroup$

Here's a simple example. Define $f\colon[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$ by $f(x)=1/\sqrt{1-x}$ for $x < 1$ and $f(1)=0$. This is unbounded, so is not Riemann integrable. To see that $f$ is integrable when you restrict to left-hand Riemann sums, it is enough that $f$ is nonnegative and Riemann integrable on each sub-interval $[0,a]$ for $0 < a < 1$ (which is the case as it is continuous on $[0,1)$), and that the indefinite integral $I\equiv\int_0^1f(x)dx=\lim_{a\uparrow1}\int_0^af(x)dx$ is finite.

Let $a\in(0,1)$ be such that $I_a\equiv\int_0^af(x)dx\ge I-\epsilon/2$. Then, by Riemann integrability on $[0,a]$, choose $\delta > 0$ so that the Riemann sum of $f$ on any partition of $[0,a]$ of mesh less than $\delta$ is within $\epsilon/2$ of $I_a$. Letting $P=\{0=x_0 < x_1 < \cdots < x_n=1\}$ be a partition of $[0,1]$ of mesh less than $\delta$, set $y_k=\min(x_k,a)$. Then, by non-negativity of $f$, $f(x_{k-1})(x_k-x_{k-1})\ge f(y_{k-1})(y_k-y_{k-1})$ $$ I+\epsilon/2\ge I_a+\epsilon/2\ge\sum_{k=1}^nf(x_{k-1})\left(x_k-x_{k-1}\right)\ge\sum_{k=1}^nf(y_{k-1})(y_k-y_{k-1})\ge I_a-\epsilon/2\ge I-\epsilon. $$ Taking $\epsilon$ arbitrarily small, the left-hand Riemann sums converge to $I$.


For bounded functions, on the other hand, it can be shown that Riemann integrability is equivalent to "left-hand" Riemann integrability, which I'll show now.

In fact there's two definitions of the left-hand Riemann integral which could be used. If $P=\{0=x_0 < x_1 <\cdots < x_n\}$ is a partition of the closed interval $[a,b]$ I'll write $I_P(f)$ for the left-hand Riemann sum $\sum_{k=1}^nf(x_{k-1})(x_k-x_{k-1})$. Then for a fixed real number $I$ there are two alternative definitions for the left-hand Riemann integral to exist and equal $I$ (all partitions are taken to be partitions of $[a,b]$).

Definition 1: For each $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that $\lvert I_P(f)-I\rvert < \epsilon$ for every partition $P$ of mesh less than $\delta$.

Definition 2: For each $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P$ such that every partition $Q$ refining $P$ satisfies $\lvert I_Q(f)-I\rvert < \epsilon$.

First, the implications "Riemann integrable ⇒ integrable acc. to def 1 ⇒ integrable acc. to def 2" follow from the definitions. It just needs to be shown here that the implication "integrable acc. to def 2 ⇒ Riemann integrable" holds for bounded functions. So, supposing $f$ is bounded, there exists an $L > 0$ with $\lvert f(x)-f(y)\rvert\le L$ for all $x,y\in[a,b]$.

For each fixed $c > 0$ let $S_c$ be the set of points $x\in[a,b]$ with $\limsup_{y\to x}\lvert f(y)-f(x)\rvert > c$. Using Lebesgue's condition for Riemann integrability, it just needs to be shown that $S_c$ has zero measure.

For any $\epsilon > 0$ let $P$ be a partition with $\lvert I_Q(f)-I\rvert < \epsilon$ for any partition $Q$ refining $P$. Also, choose any $\alpha\in(0,1)$. If $P=\{a=x_0 < x_1 < \cdots < x_n=b\}$ then, for each $k=1,\ldots,n$, let $\tilde x_k=\alpha x_{k-1}+(1-\alpha)x_k$ and $s_k=\sup\{\lvert f(x)-f(x_{k-1})\rvert\colon x\in[x_{k-1},\tilde x_k]\}$. Note that $S_c$ is disjoint from $(x_{k-1},\tilde x_k)$ whenever $s_k \le 2c$. So, the outer Lebesgue measure of $S_c$ is bounded by $$ \lvert S_c\rvert\le\sum_{k=1}^n1_{\{s_k > 2c\}}(\tilde x_k- x_{k-1})+\sum_{k=1}^nL(x_k-\tilde x_{k-1}) \le\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{s_k}{2c}(x_k-x_{k-1})+\alpha L(b-a). $$ Now we need to show that $s_k$ are small in an average sense. We can refine the partition $P$ by introducing a new point $y_k$ in each of the intervals $[x_{k-1},\tilde x_k]$, to get a new partition $Q$. Choosing $y_k=x_{k-1}$ whenever necessary, we assume that $f(y_k)\ge f(x_{k-1})$. Then, $$ 2\epsilon > I_Q(f)-I_P(f)=\sum_{k=1}^n(f(y_k)-f(x_{k-1})(x_k-y_k)\ge\alpha\sum_{k=1}^n(f(y_k)-f(x_{k-1}))(x_k-x_{k-1}). $$ Taking the supremum over the set of possible choices of $y_k$ gives $\sum_k\sup_{y\in[x_{k-1},x_k]}(f(y)-f(x_{k-1}))(x_k-x_{k-1})$ bounded by $2\epsilon/\alpha$. Applying the same result to $-f$ gives $$ \sum_{k=1}^ms_k(x_k-x_{k-1})\le4\epsilon/\alpha. $$

Plugging this into the inequality above, $$ \lvert S_c\rvert\le\frac{2\epsilon}{\alpha c}+\alpha L(b-a). $$ Making $\alpha$ small, the second term on the right hand side can be made as small as we like then, by taking $\epsilon$ small enough, the first term on the right hand side can be made arbitrarily small. So, $S_c$ has zero outer Lebesgue measure as required.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nice answer! Do you have a proof and/or a reference for the last statement? $\endgroup$ – Etienne Feb 26 '14 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. I'll write it up... $\endgroup$ – George Lowther Feb 26 '14 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ OK. I'm preparing to upvote... $\endgroup$ – Etienne Feb 26 '14 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ I think, this works, although I didn't get the "by non-negativity of $f$" part ($t_i$ should be $x_i$?). The essential idea seems to be that $\frac1{\sqrt{\delta}} \delta$ is small. I would also appreciate a proof/reference to the statement that Riemann integrability and "left-hand" Riemann integrability are the same for bounded functions. $\endgroup$ – user66081 Feb 26 '14 at 22:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The example is simple, and short. Most of the answer is proving that there are no such examples when $f$ is bounded...added a dividing line to break it up. $\endgroup$ – George Lowther Feb 26 '14 at 23:24

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.