What have you done on this?
i dont know how to solve th first part
but i know some laws for proving integrability
(*) for some dividing P
E is the set of uppers sums, T is the set of lower sums
if infE=supT then its defferentiable.
(*) S(p) is the sum of each supremum of the function in subsection mutiplied by the length of the subsection.
s(p) is the sum of each supremum of the function in subsection mutiplied by the length of the subsection.
in each subsection if inf{S(p)-s(p)}=0 then its defferentiable
or if
ok i tried this one:
f(x)=1 on x=0
f(x)=0 on other wise
for every diving of the section s(p)=0 so is supT=0 too
but S(p) is obviosly not sero so here is my example.
so but i dont know how to express S(p)
?
regarding the second one i thought of using by parts
but its not solving it
ok i could take care of this integral from here
regarding the first part:
i know some laws for proving integrability
(*) for some dividing P
E is the set of uppers sums, T is the set of lower sums
if infE=supT then its defferentiable.
(*) S(p) is the sum of each supremum of the function in subsection mutiplied by the length of the subsection.
s(p) is the sum of each supremum of the function in subsection mutiplied by the length of the subsection.
in each subsection if inf{S(p)-s(p)}=0 then its defferentiable
or if
ok i tried this one:
f(x)=1 on x=0
f(x)=0 on other wise
for every diving of the section s(p)=0 so is supT=0 too
but S(p) is obviosly not sero so here is my example.
so but i dont know how to express S(p)
?
At the level you appear to be studying at, you are most surely expected to know how to perform a partial fraction decomposition. You can at least work backwards from your answer and see if it works.
And please show all of your working in your first posting of future questions. We should not have to be asking for it.
my last post states that i have solved the integral and moved to the next one.
regarding the first part:
i know some laws for proving integrability
(*) for some dividing P
E is the set of uppers sums, T is the set of lower sums
if infE=supT then its integrible.
(*) S(p) is the sum of each supremum of the function in subsection mutiplied by the length of the subsection.
s(p) is the sum of each supremum of the function in subsection mutiplied by the length of the subsection.
in each subsection if inf{S(p)-s(p)}=0 then its defferentiable
or if
ok i tried this one:
f(x)=1 on x=0
f(x)=0 on other wise
for every diving of the section s(p)=0 so is supT=0 too
but S(p) is obviosly not sero so here is my example.
so but i dont know how to express S(p)
?
It is known that a function is Riemann integrable if and only if it is bounded and continuous almost everywhere, i.e., the set of its points of discontinuity has measure zero. A set has measure zero if it can be covered by intervals whose combined length can be made arbitrarily small; however, it is not necessary to understand this precisely for this problem. Every finite set and even every countable infinite set has measure zero, so the function you tried: f(x)=1 on x=0 f(x)=0 otherwise, is integrable (it has a single point of discontinuity). You need a lot more points of discontinuity. Consider Dirichlet function, which is nowhere continuous. It is easy to show that the upper sum, say, on [0, 1] is always 1 and the lower sum is 0.
Why are you saying "differentiable" instead of "integrable"?(*) for some dividing P
E is the set of uppers sums, T is the set of lower sums
if infE=supT then its defferentiable.