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?




enter image description hereenter image description here











share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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















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?




enter image description hereenter image description here











share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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













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?




enter image description hereenter image description here











share|cite|improve this question















$$ f(x) = left{ begin{array}{ll}
1 & { x= 1/n}, n in mathbb{N}, \
0 &text{otherwise}
end{array} right. $$



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?




enter image description hereenter image description here








calculus real-analysis integration analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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


















  • 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










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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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

























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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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















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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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













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.






share|cite|improve this answer














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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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


















  • 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


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Måne

Storängen

VLT Carioca