0
$\begingroup$

Let us call $\overline{\int_a^b}f(x)dx$ the Darboux upper integral of $f$ and $\underline{\int_a^b}f(x)dx$ the lower one.

Let us construct a partition of $[a,b]$ into $2^n$ intervals $[x_{k-1},x_k]$ defined by $x_k=a+k(b-a)/2^n$ and the corresponding Darboux sums$$\Delta_n=\frac{b-a}{2^n}\sum_{k=1}^{2^n}\sup_{x\in[x_{k-1},x_k]}f(x),\quad \delta_n=\frac{b-a}{2^n}\sum_{k=1}^{2^n}\inf_{x\in[x_{k-1},x_k]}f(x)$$

I see, by taking the definitions of $\sup$ and $\inf$, and the fact that such partitions are subsets of all partitions of $[a,b]$ into countably many closed intervals, into account, that$$\lim_n\Delta_n\geq\overline{\int_a^b}f(x)dx,\quad\quad\quad\lim_n\delta_n\leq \underline{\int_a^b}f(x)dx$$Moreover, in the case that, if the two Darboux integrals coincides, i.e. if $f$ is Riemann-Darboux integrable, I also see, by following standard techniques used to prove that $\overline{\int_a^b}f(x)dx=\underline{\int_a^b}f(x)dx$ if and only if $f$ is Cauchy integrable, that, in such a particular case the equality $\lim_n\Delta_n=\lim_n\delta_n=\int_a^bf(x)dx$, where $\int_a^bf(x)dx$ is the Riemann-Darboux, or Cauchy (it is the same), integral, holds.

I wonder whether $\lim_n\Delta_n=\overline{\int_a^b}f(x)dx$ and $\lim_n\delta_n=\underline{\int_a^b}f(x)dx$ hold in general, and how it can be proven.

I thank you all for any answer!

EDIT Mar 22'15: more general result here.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Claim: $\lim_{n\to\infty}\delta_n=\underline{\int}_a^bf$.

Denote by $P$ a partition of $[a,b]$, by $L(f,P)$ the lower Darboux sum of $f$ or the partition $P$ and by $P_n$ the partition of $[a,b]$ in $2^n$ intervals of equal length (so that $\delta_n=L(f,P_n)$.) The sequence $L(f,P_n)$ is bounded and increasing. Let $I$ be its limit, and assume that $I<\underline{\int}_a^bf$. Then there exists a partition $P$ such that $I<L(f,P)\le\underline{\int}_a^bf$. Let $P_n^*$ be the partition formed with the points of $P_n$ and $P$. Let also $M$ be a bound of $|f|$ and $K$ the number of points in $P$. $L(f,P_n)$ and $L(f,P_n^*)$ differ on the intervals of $P_n$ that contain points of $P$. Then $$ 0<L(f,P_n^*)-L(f,P_n)\le2\,M\,K\,2^{-n}, $$ from where $$ L(f,P_n)\ge L(f,P_n^*)-2\,M\,K\,2^{-n}\ge L(f,P)-2\,M\,K\,2^{-n}. $$ Taking limits as $n\to\infty$ we get $I\ge L(f,P)$, a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What a beautiful proof. Similarly, if $\lim_n\Delta_n>\overline{\int_a^b}$, then there would exist a partition such that $\lim_n\Delta_n>U(f,P)$ and $U(f,P_n)\leq U(f,P)+2MK2^{-n}$, which would lead to the analogous contradiction. I also notice that the all that has been said also hold for partitions into intervals of measure $k^{-n}$ for any $k\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$. Very interesting. ¡Le agradezco de todo corazón, gentilísimo Profesor! $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Oct 20 '14 at 15:46

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.