How to prove that a function similar to Thomae is integrable (using Advanced calculus only )
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
$$ f(x) = left{ begin{array}{ll}
1 & { x= 1/n}, n in mathbb{N}, \
0 &text{otherwise}
end{array} right. $$
Prove that $f$ is integrable [Darboux] on [0,1].
I believe that the proof will be similar to this but not exactly, so could anyone tell me the differences please?
calculus real-analysis integration analysis
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
$$ f(x) = left{ begin{array}{ll}
1 & { x= 1/n}, n in mathbb{N}, \
0 &text{otherwise}
end{array} right. $$
Prove that $f$ is integrable [Darboux] on [0,1].
I believe that the proof will be similar to this but not exactly, so could anyone tell me the differences please?
calculus real-analysis integration analysis
Is your "Darboux" sum deals only with partitions with equal length of subintervals?
– xbh
14 hours ago
No it does not @xbh
– hopefully
14 hours ago
2
This one is easier. Only one interval contains infinitely many points.
– xbh
14 hours ago
How to choose the partition here? @xbh
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
To be clear, for each $varepsilon >0$, we only need to find one partition s.t. $U(f,P)-L(f,P)< varepsilon $, correct? [Various text may use different theorems]
– xbh
13 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
$$ f(x) = left{ begin{array}{ll}
1 & { x= 1/n}, n in mathbb{N}, \
0 &text{otherwise}
end{array} right. $$
Prove that $f$ is integrable [Darboux] on [0,1].
I believe that the proof will be similar to this but not exactly, so could anyone tell me the differences please?
calculus real-analysis integration analysis
$$ f(x) = left{ begin{array}{ll}
1 & { x= 1/n}, n in mathbb{N}, \
0 &text{otherwise}
end{array} right. $$
Prove that $f$ is integrable [Darboux] on [0,1].
I believe that the proof will be similar to this but not exactly, so could anyone tell me the differences please?
calculus real-analysis integration analysis
calculus real-analysis integration analysis
edited 14 hours ago
Bernard
116k637108
116k637108
asked 15 hours ago
hopefully
10312
10312
Is your "Darboux" sum deals only with partitions with equal length of subintervals?
– xbh
14 hours ago
No it does not @xbh
– hopefully
14 hours ago
2
This one is easier. Only one interval contains infinitely many points.
– xbh
14 hours ago
How to choose the partition here? @xbh
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
To be clear, for each $varepsilon >0$, we only need to find one partition s.t. $U(f,P)-L(f,P)< varepsilon $, correct? [Various text may use different theorems]
– xbh
13 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Is your "Darboux" sum deals only with partitions with equal length of subintervals?
– xbh
14 hours ago
No it does not @xbh
– hopefully
14 hours ago
2
This one is easier. Only one interval contains infinitely many points.
– xbh
14 hours ago
How to choose the partition here? @xbh
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
To be clear, for each $varepsilon >0$, we only need to find one partition s.t. $U(f,P)-L(f,P)< varepsilon $, correct? [Various text may use different theorems]
– xbh
13 hours ago
Is your "Darboux" sum deals only with partitions with equal length of subintervals?
– xbh
14 hours ago
Is your "Darboux" sum deals only with partitions with equal length of subintervals?
– xbh
14 hours ago
No it does not @xbh
– hopefully
14 hours ago
No it does not @xbh
– hopefully
14 hours ago
2
2
This one is easier. Only one interval contains infinitely many points.
– xbh
14 hours ago
This one is easier. Only one interval contains infinitely many points.
– xbh
14 hours ago
How to choose the partition here? @xbh
– hopefully
13 hours ago
How to choose the partition here? @xbh
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
1
To be clear, for each $varepsilon >0$, we only need to find one partition s.t. $U(f,P)-L(f,P)< varepsilon $, correct? [Various text may use different theorems]
– xbh
13 hours ago
To be clear, for each $varepsilon >0$, we only need to find one partition s.t. $U(f,P)-L(f,P)< varepsilon $, correct? [Various text may use different theorems]
– xbh
13 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
For each $varepsilon >0$, there is some $Nin mathbb N^* colon N < 2/varepsilon$. Let $1/(N+1) leqslant x_1 < 1/N$, then $[x_1, 1]$ contains $S = {1/N, 1/(N-1), dots, 1/2, 1}$. Now use closed intervals with length $leqslant 1/N^2$ to cover each single point $1/j$ foe $j =1, dots, N$, and add other points if you like, then
$$
U(f,P) leqslant 1 (x_1 - 0) + 1 cdot frac 1{N^2} cdot N + 0cdot sum_{S cap [x_{j-1},x_j] =varnothing} (x_j - x_{j-1})leqslant frac 1{N+1} + frac 1N < frac 2N < varepsilon,
$$
where $P={0, x_1, cdots, 1}$ that contains the endpoints of the aforementioned intervals. Clearly $L(f,P) =0$, since every interval contains points not in $S$, so $U(f,P) - L(f,P) < varepsilon$.
Remark
We first notice that ${1/n}_1^infty$ converges to $0$, so we could choose $x_1$ s.t. $[0,x_1]$ covers infinitely many points of them. For the rest of them, each are "isolated", so we could use intervals with length as small as possible to cover them. Thus the upper sum w.r.t. such partition would be small enough as well.
math.stackexchange.com/questions/3019732/… Can you look at this question for me please?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
this is the partition of the new problem not an explanation for the example correct?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
@hopefully Yes.
– xbh
13 hours ago
what do you mean by the statement "the rest of them are isolated"?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
$x_{1}$ is so strange for me, what values it can take?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
For each $varepsilon >0$, there is some $Nin mathbb N^* colon N < 2/varepsilon$. Let $1/(N+1) leqslant x_1 < 1/N$, then $[x_1, 1]$ contains $S = {1/N, 1/(N-1), dots, 1/2, 1}$. Now use closed intervals with length $leqslant 1/N^2$ to cover each single point $1/j$ foe $j =1, dots, N$, and add other points if you like, then
$$
U(f,P) leqslant 1 (x_1 - 0) + 1 cdot frac 1{N^2} cdot N + 0cdot sum_{S cap [x_{j-1},x_j] =varnothing} (x_j - x_{j-1})leqslant frac 1{N+1} + frac 1N < frac 2N < varepsilon,
$$
where $P={0, x_1, cdots, 1}$ that contains the endpoints of the aforementioned intervals. Clearly $L(f,P) =0$, since every interval contains points not in $S$, so $U(f,P) - L(f,P) < varepsilon$.
Remark
We first notice that ${1/n}_1^infty$ converges to $0$, so we could choose $x_1$ s.t. $[0,x_1]$ covers infinitely many points of them. For the rest of them, each are "isolated", so we could use intervals with length as small as possible to cover them. Thus the upper sum w.r.t. such partition would be small enough as well.
math.stackexchange.com/questions/3019732/… Can you look at this question for me please?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
this is the partition of the new problem not an explanation for the example correct?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
@hopefully Yes.
– xbh
13 hours ago
what do you mean by the statement "the rest of them are isolated"?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
$x_{1}$ is so strange for me, what values it can take?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
For each $varepsilon >0$, there is some $Nin mathbb N^* colon N < 2/varepsilon$. Let $1/(N+1) leqslant x_1 < 1/N$, then $[x_1, 1]$ contains $S = {1/N, 1/(N-1), dots, 1/2, 1}$. Now use closed intervals with length $leqslant 1/N^2$ to cover each single point $1/j$ foe $j =1, dots, N$, and add other points if you like, then
$$
U(f,P) leqslant 1 (x_1 - 0) + 1 cdot frac 1{N^2} cdot N + 0cdot sum_{S cap [x_{j-1},x_j] =varnothing} (x_j - x_{j-1})leqslant frac 1{N+1} + frac 1N < frac 2N < varepsilon,
$$
where $P={0, x_1, cdots, 1}$ that contains the endpoints of the aforementioned intervals. Clearly $L(f,P) =0$, since every interval contains points not in $S$, so $U(f,P) - L(f,P) < varepsilon$.
Remark
We first notice that ${1/n}_1^infty$ converges to $0$, so we could choose $x_1$ s.t. $[0,x_1]$ covers infinitely many points of them. For the rest of them, each are "isolated", so we could use intervals with length as small as possible to cover them. Thus the upper sum w.r.t. such partition would be small enough as well.
math.stackexchange.com/questions/3019732/… Can you look at this question for me please?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
this is the partition of the new problem not an explanation for the example correct?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
@hopefully Yes.
– xbh
13 hours ago
what do you mean by the statement "the rest of them are isolated"?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
$x_{1}$ is so strange for me, what values it can take?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
For each $varepsilon >0$, there is some $Nin mathbb N^* colon N < 2/varepsilon$. Let $1/(N+1) leqslant x_1 < 1/N$, then $[x_1, 1]$ contains $S = {1/N, 1/(N-1), dots, 1/2, 1}$. Now use closed intervals with length $leqslant 1/N^2$ to cover each single point $1/j$ foe $j =1, dots, N$, and add other points if you like, then
$$
U(f,P) leqslant 1 (x_1 - 0) + 1 cdot frac 1{N^2} cdot N + 0cdot sum_{S cap [x_{j-1},x_j] =varnothing} (x_j - x_{j-1})leqslant frac 1{N+1} + frac 1N < frac 2N < varepsilon,
$$
where $P={0, x_1, cdots, 1}$ that contains the endpoints of the aforementioned intervals. Clearly $L(f,P) =0$, since every interval contains points not in $S$, so $U(f,P) - L(f,P) < varepsilon$.
Remark
We first notice that ${1/n}_1^infty$ converges to $0$, so we could choose $x_1$ s.t. $[0,x_1]$ covers infinitely many points of them. For the rest of them, each are "isolated", so we could use intervals with length as small as possible to cover them. Thus the upper sum w.r.t. such partition would be small enough as well.
For each $varepsilon >0$, there is some $Nin mathbb N^* colon N < 2/varepsilon$. Let $1/(N+1) leqslant x_1 < 1/N$, then $[x_1, 1]$ contains $S = {1/N, 1/(N-1), dots, 1/2, 1}$. Now use closed intervals with length $leqslant 1/N^2$ to cover each single point $1/j$ foe $j =1, dots, N$, and add other points if you like, then
$$
U(f,P) leqslant 1 (x_1 - 0) + 1 cdot frac 1{N^2} cdot N + 0cdot sum_{S cap [x_{j-1},x_j] =varnothing} (x_j - x_{j-1})leqslant frac 1{N+1} + frac 1N < frac 2N < varepsilon,
$$
where $P={0, x_1, cdots, 1}$ that contains the endpoints of the aforementioned intervals. Clearly $L(f,P) =0$, since every interval contains points not in $S$, so $U(f,P) - L(f,P) < varepsilon$.
Remark
We first notice that ${1/n}_1^infty$ converges to $0$, so we could choose $x_1$ s.t. $[0,x_1]$ covers infinitely many points of them. For the rest of them, each are "isolated", so we could use intervals with length as small as possible to cover them. Thus the upper sum w.r.t. such partition would be small enough as well.
edited 12 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
xbh
5,2041421
5,2041421
math.stackexchange.com/questions/3019732/… Can you look at this question for me please?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
this is the partition of the new problem not an explanation for the example correct?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
@hopefully Yes.
– xbh
13 hours ago
what do you mean by the statement "the rest of them are isolated"?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
$x_{1}$ is so strange for me, what values it can take?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
math.stackexchange.com/questions/3019732/… Can you look at this question for me please?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
this is the partition of the new problem not an explanation for the example correct?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
@hopefully Yes.
– xbh
13 hours ago
what do you mean by the statement "the rest of them are isolated"?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
$x_{1}$ is so strange for me, what values it can take?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
math.stackexchange.com/questions/3019732/… Can you look at this question for me please?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
math.stackexchange.com/questions/3019732/… Can you look at this question for me please?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
this is the partition of the new problem not an explanation for the example correct?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
this is the partition of the new problem not an explanation for the example correct?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
1
@hopefully Yes.
– xbh
13 hours ago
@hopefully Yes.
– xbh
13 hours ago
what do you mean by the statement "the rest of them are isolated"?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
what do you mean by the statement "the rest of them are isolated"?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
$x_{1}$ is so strange for me, what values it can take?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
$x_{1}$ is so strange for me, what values it can take?
– hopefully
13 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3019883%2fhow-to-prove-that-a-function-similar-to-thomae-is-integrable-using-advanced-cal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown


Is your "Darboux" sum deals only with partitions with equal length of subintervals?
– xbh
14 hours ago
No it does not @xbh
– hopefully
14 hours ago
2
This one is easier. Only one interval contains infinitely many points.
– xbh
14 hours ago
How to choose the partition here? @xbh
– hopefully
13 hours ago
1
To be clear, for each $varepsilon >0$, we only need to find one partition s.t. $U(f,P)-L(f,P)< varepsilon $, correct? [Various text may use different theorems]
– xbh
13 hours ago