Interactive · 2 questions
One of the ways to approach the definite integral is by using Darboux sums. The upper Darboux sum will overestimate the definite integral, while the lower Darboux sum will underestimate the definite integral. As we refine these upper and lower Darboux sums, their values will (hopefully) become closer and closer to the actual value of the definite integral.
Definition: A partition of the interval is a set , such that .
Example: Some partitions of are , , .
As their name suggests, partitions take an interval and break it up into various subintervals; these are the intervals .
The idea with Darboux sums is that we want to take these subintervals and make them small enough that our function , the function we want to integrate, is roughly constant on each subinterval. Then it is easy to estimate the value of on that subinterval, which will let us approximate the definite integral.
Definitions: The upper Darboux sum for a partition on is defined as where , the supremum of on the subinterval .
Similarly, the lower Darboux sum for is where , the infimum of on the subinterval .
To get an intuitive idea of these Darboux sums, let's consider continuous. Then by the extreme value theorem, obtains its maximum on a compact interval like , and so we can replace the supremums with maximums.
The upper sum takes the maximum of on each subinterval, then multiplies that value by the length of the subinterval. Graphically, what does this product represent?
Graphically, is the area of a rectangle - the one with base the subinterval , and height .
How does the area of this rectangle compare to the area under on the subinterval ?
Similarly, since is the minimum, the lower sum will underestimate the value of the integral.
TODO: graph, picture of sums
Example: Let , and let be a partition of . Let's compute . We need to compute on each interval. Since is increasing on , the maximum on each subinterval will occur at the right-most point. Thus
Now we have an upper bound, , and a lower bound, for the integral. How can we improve our estimate?
By taking smaller and smaller subintervals , we can better approximate on each subinterval, which will give a better approximation for the integral.
TODO: refinements => U(f,P) decreases, L(f,P) increases => inf, sup in definition, why exist
Definitions: The upper Darboux integral is defined as Similarly, the lower Darboux integral is defined as If , then we say is integrable on , and write
Computing and is usually pretty difficult, but we'll look at one specific example where it's relatively easy.
Example (indicator function of the rationals, also called Dirichlet function). We're looking at the function defined by Kind of a weird function, right? It's not continuous anywhere (try showing this! Use the fact that any interval contains both rational and irrational points, and so the function takes on values and in every interval. Can this function have a limit?)
Anyway, this is a classic example of a function that is not integrable. We'll show this by computing the upper and lower Darboux integrals and showing they differ. For convenience, we'll look at the interval and let denote the function .
Let be a partition of . Note that any interval contains both rational and irrational numbers, so that takes exactly the values and . Thus , and .
Now we can compute and These values for and hold for any partition , and so we conclude and Thus , so is not integrable.
Usually it's pretty difficult and time-consuming to explicitly calculate and .
Ready to move on to a more convenient way to check integrability?
Our main goal will be:
Theorem (Riemann's condition for integrability): A bounded function on is integrable if and only if for every , there exists a partition of such that
TODO: Finish the rest