Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

The Riemann Integral ... Conway, Proposition 3.1.4 ...

Peter

Well-known member
MHB Site Helper
Jun 22, 2012
2,916
I am reading John B. Conway's book: A First Course in Analysis and am focused on Chapter 3: Integration ... and in particular I am focused on Section 3.1: The Riemann Integral ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 3.1.4 ...


Proposition 3.1.4 and its proof read as follows:



Conway - 1 - Proposition 3.1.4  - PART 1  ... .png
Conway - 2 - Proposition 3.1.4  - PART 2 ... .png



In the above proof by John Conway we read the following:

" ... ... Since \(\displaystyle \epsilon\) was arbitrary we have that there can be only one number between L(f, Q) and U(f, Q) for every such refinement. ... ... "


My question is as follows:

Can someone please explain what Conway means by saying that there can be only one number between \(\displaystyle L(f, Q)\) and \(\displaystyle U(f, Q)\) for every such refinement and, further explain why this is true ... and then, further yet, why exactly this number is \(\displaystyle \int_a^b f \) ...


Help will be appreciated ...

Peter


==========================================================================================


The above proof refers to Proposition 3.1.2 so I am making available the statement of the proposition ... as follows:


Conway - Proposition 3.1.2 ... .png


It may help MHB readers to have access to the start of Section 3.1 preliminary to Proposition 3.1.4 ... so I am providing the same ... as follows:


Conway - 1 - Start of Section 3.1 ... Part 1 .png
Conway - 2 - Start of Section 3.1 ... Part 2 ... .png
Conway - 3 - Start of Section 3.1 ... Part 3 ... .png



Hope that helps ...

Peter
 
Last edited:

HallsofIvy

Well-known member
MHB Math Helper
Jan 29, 2012
1,151
That's a lot to digest in one sitting but here is your basic question:
Can someone please explain what Conway means by saying that there can be only one number between \(\displaystyle L(f, Q)\) and \(\displaystyle U(f, Q)\) for every such refinement and, further explain why this is true ... and then, further yet, why exactly this number is \(\displaystyle \int_a^b f \) ...
The wording is a little ambiguous. I can see how it could be interpreted as "for each refinement" and perhaps that is how you are reading it. But he intends to say that there is a unique number that works for every refinement. Suppose there were two such numbers, p and q. Then then take a refinement such that [tex]\epsilon< |p- q|[/tex]. Those two numbers cannot both be in that refinement so cannot be in every refinement.

As for "why exactly this number is [tex]\int_a^b f [/tex]". He is defining [tex]\int_a^b f[/tex] to be that number!
 

Peter

Well-known member
MHB Site Helper
Jun 22, 2012
2,916
That's a lot to digest in one sitting but here is your basic question:

The wording is a little ambiguous. I can see how it could be interpreted as "for each refinement" and perhaps that is how you are reading it. But he intends to say that there is a unique number that works for every refinement. Suppose there were two such numbers, p and q. Then then take a refinement such that [tex]\epsilon< |p- q|[/tex]. Those two numbers cannot both be in that refinement so cannot be in every refinement.

As for "why exactly this number is [tex]\int_a^b f [/tex]". He is defining [tex]\int_a^b f[/tex] to be that number!


Thanks HallsofIvy ...

Still reflecting on what you have said ...

Thanks again ...

Peter