Talk:Fundamental Theorem of Calculus/Second Part/Proof 2

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thank you so much for fixing up the alternative second part proof! Hopefully I'll learn enough from your changes that my next proof will be better.

Question: when you say

"$\left[{a .. b}\right]$ can be divided into any number of closed subintervals of the form $\left[{x_{k-1} .. x_k}\right]$ where:

$ a = x_0 < x_1 \cdots < x_{k-1} < x_k = b$

Fix such a subdivision of the interval $\left[{a .. b}\right]$; call it $P$."

Is that the same thing as what my book is saying? The book I got the proof from, Larson/Hostetler/Edwards. It calls the $\Delta$ "[a] partition of $[a,b]$. I think $\Delta$ is another name for what the wiki proof calls $P$, am I right? Also, instead of talking about supremum and infimum, it takes the limit as $||\Delta||\to0$ and from what I understand from my book it means $||\Delta_{biggest}||\to0$. Are those the same thing?

--GFauxPas 10:42, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

A partition of $[a..b]$ (which is preferred over $[a,b]$ on PW) is indeed the same as a subdivision of $[a..b]$ (compare the definition). The supremum and infimum are not quite the same as $\|\Delta\| \to 0$. They are dependent on the particular chosen $P$, and are used in the definition of upper and lower sums. The trick I used to avoid that somewhat sloppy use of continuity is that I rewrote it into terms for which the definition of definite integral applies, i.e.:

"Suppose that $\exists y \in \R$ such that:

  • For any lower sum $L \left({P}\right)$ over any of subdivision $P$ of $\left[{a .., b}\right]$, $L \left({P}\right) \le y$
  • For any upper sum $U \left({P}\right)$ over any of subdivision $P$ of $\left[{a .. b}\right]$, $U \left({P}\right) \ge y$

Then ... $\displaystyle y = \int_a^b f \left({x}\right)\ \mathrm d x$"

which gives the conclusion immediately. It is a matter of style which definition of the integral one uses. The one used here at PW is very nice, as it avoids cluttering with convergence of some $||\Delta_{biggest}||$ to 0. It is however, hopefully, clear that these definitions are equivalent (some clutter on refinement of subdivisions and such), so I exploit the easier form for this occasion. That clear things up? --Lord_Farin 10:55, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

Haha not really! But I'm going to study Riemann sums and related subjects and then go back and reread your explanation :) I didn't learn about convergence in my class yet so I may go learn it on my own, depending on my ambition. Thanks though. --GFauxPas 13:58, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

I realize that I might have given the impression I'm writing out proofs straight from my book without understanding their content. That's not the case, and actually my presentation has been a bit different than the way my book does it, I just never learned about certain things and I need time to research it for myself. --GFauxPas 14:13, 23 October 2011 (CDT)