Results 1 to 8 of 8

Math Help - Direct ways

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    156

    Direct ways

    Are there any direct ways of proving that if  f is real-valued and Riemann integrable on  [a,b] , then  f is bounded?

    Because the usual proof would be by contraposition:

    Outline of "Usual Proof"

    1. There exists a sequence  (y_n) in  [a,b] that converges to  y \in [a,b] , such that for every  n \in \mathbb{N} ,  |f(y_n)| >n .

    2. Let  P be a partition of  [a,b] . Then the set of Riemann sums of  f corresponding to  P is an unbounded set of real numbers.

    3. Thus  f cannot be Riemann integrable on  [a.b] .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by manjohn12 View Post
    Are there any direct ways of proving that if  f is real-valued and Riemann integrable on  [a,b] , then  f is bounded?
    This question seems strange to me. In the very definition of what it means for a function to be Riemann integrable it is assumed the function is bounded. Thus, there is no proof that the function is bounded, that is an assumption that we make about the function in the very beginning.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    This question seems strange to me. In the very definition of what it means for a function to be Riemann integrable it is assumed the function is bounded. Thus, there is no proof that the function is bounded, that is an assumption that we make about the function in the very beginning.

    The function is not assumed to be bounded in my definition.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    This question seems strange to me. In the very definition of what it means for a function to be Riemann integrable it is assumed the function is bounded. Thus, there is no proof that the function is bounded, that is an assumption that we make about the function in the very beginning.
    Here is the definition: Let  a,b \in \mathbb{R} with  a<b . Let  f be a real valued function whose domain consists of the interval  [a,b] . We say that  f is Riemann integrable on  [a,b] if there exists a real number  I such that for all  \epsilon >0 , there exists  \delta >0 such that  |\mathcal{R}(f,P)-I| < \epsilon whenever  \mathcal{R}(f,P) is a Riemann sum for  f corresponding to a partition of  [a,b] with mesh less than  \delta .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1573
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by manjohn12 View Post
    Here is the definition: Let  a,b \in \mathbb{R} with  a<b . Let  f be a real valued function whose domain consists of the interval  [a,b] . We say that  f is Riemann integrable on  [a,b] if there exists a real number  I such that for all  \epsilon >0 , there exists  \delta >0 such that  |\mathcal{R}(f,P)-I| < \epsilon whenever  \mathcal{R}(f,P) is a Riemann sum for  f corresponding to a partition of  [a,b] with mesh less than  \delta .
    I will give you only an outline of a direct proof. A complete proof is messy with loads of subscripts. There is a partition of [a,b], P = \left\{ {a = t_0  < t_1  <  \cdots  < t_n  = b} \right\} such that \left| {t_j  - t_{j - 1} } \right| < \delta .
    Suppose we have a refinement Q \subseteq P then \left| {\mathcal{R} (f;P) - \mathcal{R} (f;Q)} \right| < 1.
    Now here comes the messy part.
    By using right hand sums with respect to P we change one number in the Q sum y \in \left[ {t_{j - 1} ,t_j } \right] we get \begin{gathered}  \left| {\left( {f(y) - f(t_j )} \right)\left( {t_j  - t_{j - 1} } \right)} \right| \leqslant \left| {\left( {f(y) - f(t_j )} \right)} \right|\delta  < 1 \hfill \\<br />
  \left| {f(y)} \right| < \frac{1}<br />
{\delta } + \left| {f(t_j )} \right| \hfill \\ \end{gathered} .
    Use the number B = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^n {\frac{1}{\delta } + \left| {f(t_j )} \right|} for the bound.

    I hope you can at least see how it might work.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by manjohn12 View Post
    Here is the definition: Let  a,b \in \mathbb{R} with  a<b . Let  f be a real valued function whose domain consists of the interval  [a,b] . We say that  f is Riemann integrable on  [a,b] if there exists a real number  I such that for all  \epsilon >0 , there exists  \delta >0 such that  |\mathcal{R}(f,P)-I| < \epsilon whenever  \mathcal{R}(f,P) is a Riemann sum for  f corresponding to a partition of  [a,b] with mesh less than  \delta .
    Let \epsilon=1 and let P=\{x_0,x_1,...,x_n\}. The function is unbounded on [a,b], therefore it must be unbounded on one of the subintervals: [x_0,x_1],[x_1,x_2],...,[x_{n-1},x_n]. Say that f is unbounded on [x_{j-1},x_j]. Remember that \mathcal{R}(f,P) = \sum_{k=1}^n f(t_k)\Delta_k where t_k \in [x_{k-1},x_k] is some chosen point and \Delta_k = x_k - x_{k-1}. Choose the points t_0,...,t_{j-1},t_{j+1},...,t_n any way you want to. Then since f is unbounded on [x_{j-1},x_j] you can pick t_j so that \left| \sum_{k=1}^n f(t_k)\Delta_k\right| > M for any M>0. This means if |\mathcal{R}(f.P) - I | < 1\implies |\mathcal{R}(f,P) | < |I| + 1 but we shown this is impossible.

    EDIT: Indirect proof.
    Last edited by ThePerfectHacker; March 13th 2009 at 10:00 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1573
    Awards
    1
    TPH. Note that manjohn12 asked for a direct proof.
    He said that he knew several proofs by contradiction.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by manjohn12 View Post
    Are there any direct ways of proving that if  f is real-valued and Riemann integrable on  [a,b] , then  f is bounded?

    Because the usual proof would be by contraposition:

    Outline of "Usual Proof"

    1. There exists a sequence  (y_n) in  [a,b] that converges to  y \in [a,b] , such that for every  n \in \mathbb{N} ,  |f(y_n)| >n .

    2. Let  P be a partition of  [a,b] . Then the set of Riemann sums of  f corresponding to  P is an unbounded set of real numbers.

    3. Thus  f cannot be Riemann integrable on  [a.b] .
    Off topic: For (1) All you need to show is that a a sequence exists that satisfies those properties? You use the compactness of  [a,b] to construct the sequence?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. [SOLVED] How many ways
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 17th 2011, 05:28 PM
  2. No of ways ?
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 29th 2010, 08:43 AM
  3. in how many ways?
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 7th 2009, 09:11 AM
  4. how many ways are there to
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 3rd 2008, 12:59 PM
  5. How many ways for 3 #'s to add up to 17?
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 16th 2007, 08:15 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum