How to prove that $int_a^b = int_a^c + int_c^b$ for Riemann-Stieltjes integrals

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $f$ be Riemann-Stieltjes integrable with respect to $g$ on $[a,b]$. By Riemann-Stieltjes integrable I mean that $forallvarepsilon>0existsdelta$ such that when the norm of any partition $P$ of $[a,b]$ is smaller than $delta$ then $mid S(P,T,f,g)-int_a^bf(x)dg(x)mid<varepsilon$ where $T$ is an arbitrary choice of tags. I'm trying to show that for $forall cin[a,b]$
$int_a^bf(x)dg(x) = int_a^cf(x)dg(x) + int_c^bf(x)dg(x)$. This seems to be a bit tricky to show as opposed to some other linear properties. The problem comes down to the fact that the partition of choice is arbitrary as long as its norm is sufficiently small. So if $c$ is not an endpoint of a subinterval of the partition then the Riemann-Stieltjes sum cannot be split into a sum over $[a,c]$ and $[c,b]$ and that way be treated easily. Assuming I found a way to do this, then I would still have to prove that the two integrals on the right hand side exist. To my understanding the proof of this is quite a bit easier if we require $g$ to be monotone or perhaps a bound variation which is an entirely new thing for me. However, I don't want to consider special cases. Perhaps there are cases where the integrals exists without g being monotone or a bound variation, I would like to include those as well in the proof. I'm thinking that I perhaps have to find an equivalent definition that is easier to work with and prove it that way but I don't really know how to go about doing so. Some help would be greatly appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question























  • Use the supremum-infinum approach. And join partitions together.
    – Math_QED
    Sep 3 at 10:55










  • I guess the main thing to worry about is the case when $f,g$ both have discontinuities at the point $c$. Can your tags be at an endpoint of the subinterval they correspond to?
    – GEdgar
    Sep 3 at 12:48










  • Yes, endpoints of subintervals can be tags as well. Does this cause a problem?
    – David
    Sep 3 at 13:32











  • This is a difficult theorem. First one proves that if $int_a ^b f(x) , dg(x) $ exists then $int_c ^d f(x) , dg(x) $ exists where $[c, d] $ is any arbitrary subinterval of $[a, b] $ and then show that the result in question.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Sep 4 at 7:40














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $f$ be Riemann-Stieltjes integrable with respect to $g$ on $[a,b]$. By Riemann-Stieltjes integrable I mean that $forallvarepsilon>0existsdelta$ such that when the norm of any partition $P$ of $[a,b]$ is smaller than $delta$ then $mid S(P,T,f,g)-int_a^bf(x)dg(x)mid<varepsilon$ where $T$ is an arbitrary choice of tags. I'm trying to show that for $forall cin[a,b]$
$int_a^bf(x)dg(x) = int_a^cf(x)dg(x) + int_c^bf(x)dg(x)$. This seems to be a bit tricky to show as opposed to some other linear properties. The problem comes down to the fact that the partition of choice is arbitrary as long as its norm is sufficiently small. So if $c$ is not an endpoint of a subinterval of the partition then the Riemann-Stieltjes sum cannot be split into a sum over $[a,c]$ and $[c,b]$ and that way be treated easily. Assuming I found a way to do this, then I would still have to prove that the two integrals on the right hand side exist. To my understanding the proof of this is quite a bit easier if we require $g$ to be monotone or perhaps a bound variation which is an entirely new thing for me. However, I don't want to consider special cases. Perhaps there are cases where the integrals exists without g being monotone or a bound variation, I would like to include those as well in the proof. I'm thinking that I perhaps have to find an equivalent definition that is easier to work with and prove it that way but I don't really know how to go about doing so. Some help would be greatly appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question























  • Use the supremum-infinum approach. And join partitions together.
    – Math_QED
    Sep 3 at 10:55










  • I guess the main thing to worry about is the case when $f,g$ both have discontinuities at the point $c$. Can your tags be at an endpoint of the subinterval they correspond to?
    – GEdgar
    Sep 3 at 12:48










  • Yes, endpoints of subintervals can be tags as well. Does this cause a problem?
    – David
    Sep 3 at 13:32











  • This is a difficult theorem. First one proves that if $int_a ^b f(x) , dg(x) $ exists then $int_c ^d f(x) , dg(x) $ exists where $[c, d] $ is any arbitrary subinterval of $[a, b] $ and then show that the result in question.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Sep 4 at 7:40












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Let $f$ be Riemann-Stieltjes integrable with respect to $g$ on $[a,b]$. By Riemann-Stieltjes integrable I mean that $forallvarepsilon>0existsdelta$ such that when the norm of any partition $P$ of $[a,b]$ is smaller than $delta$ then $mid S(P,T,f,g)-int_a^bf(x)dg(x)mid<varepsilon$ where $T$ is an arbitrary choice of tags. I'm trying to show that for $forall cin[a,b]$
$int_a^bf(x)dg(x) = int_a^cf(x)dg(x) + int_c^bf(x)dg(x)$. This seems to be a bit tricky to show as opposed to some other linear properties. The problem comes down to the fact that the partition of choice is arbitrary as long as its norm is sufficiently small. So if $c$ is not an endpoint of a subinterval of the partition then the Riemann-Stieltjes sum cannot be split into a sum over $[a,c]$ and $[c,b]$ and that way be treated easily. Assuming I found a way to do this, then I would still have to prove that the two integrals on the right hand side exist. To my understanding the proof of this is quite a bit easier if we require $g$ to be monotone or perhaps a bound variation which is an entirely new thing for me. However, I don't want to consider special cases. Perhaps there are cases where the integrals exists without g being monotone or a bound variation, I would like to include those as well in the proof. I'm thinking that I perhaps have to find an equivalent definition that is easier to work with and prove it that way but I don't really know how to go about doing so. Some help would be greatly appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question















Let $f$ be Riemann-Stieltjes integrable with respect to $g$ on $[a,b]$. By Riemann-Stieltjes integrable I mean that $forallvarepsilon>0existsdelta$ such that when the norm of any partition $P$ of $[a,b]$ is smaller than $delta$ then $mid S(P,T,f,g)-int_a^bf(x)dg(x)mid<varepsilon$ where $T$ is an arbitrary choice of tags. I'm trying to show that for $forall cin[a,b]$
$int_a^bf(x)dg(x) = int_a^cf(x)dg(x) + int_c^bf(x)dg(x)$. This seems to be a bit tricky to show as opposed to some other linear properties. The problem comes down to the fact that the partition of choice is arbitrary as long as its norm is sufficiently small. So if $c$ is not an endpoint of a subinterval of the partition then the Riemann-Stieltjes sum cannot be split into a sum over $[a,c]$ and $[c,b]$ and that way be treated easily. Assuming I found a way to do this, then I would still have to prove that the two integrals on the right hand side exist. To my understanding the proof of this is quite a bit easier if we require $g$ to be monotone or perhaps a bound variation which is an entirely new thing for me. However, I don't want to consider special cases. Perhaps there are cases where the integrals exists without g being monotone or a bound variation, I would like to include those as well in the proof. I'm thinking that I perhaps have to find an equivalent definition that is easier to work with and prove it that way but I don't really know how to go about doing so. Some help would be greatly appreciated.







calculus real-analysis integration analysis riemann-sum






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 4 at 9:28

























asked Sep 3 at 9:28









David

607315




607315











  • Use the supremum-infinum approach. And join partitions together.
    – Math_QED
    Sep 3 at 10:55










  • I guess the main thing to worry about is the case when $f,g$ both have discontinuities at the point $c$. Can your tags be at an endpoint of the subinterval they correspond to?
    – GEdgar
    Sep 3 at 12:48










  • Yes, endpoints of subintervals can be tags as well. Does this cause a problem?
    – David
    Sep 3 at 13:32











  • This is a difficult theorem. First one proves that if $int_a ^b f(x) , dg(x) $ exists then $int_c ^d f(x) , dg(x) $ exists where $[c, d] $ is any arbitrary subinterval of $[a, b] $ and then show that the result in question.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Sep 4 at 7:40
















  • Use the supremum-infinum approach. And join partitions together.
    – Math_QED
    Sep 3 at 10:55










  • I guess the main thing to worry about is the case when $f,g$ both have discontinuities at the point $c$. Can your tags be at an endpoint of the subinterval they correspond to?
    – GEdgar
    Sep 3 at 12:48










  • Yes, endpoints of subintervals can be tags as well. Does this cause a problem?
    – David
    Sep 3 at 13:32











  • This is a difficult theorem. First one proves that if $int_a ^b f(x) , dg(x) $ exists then $int_c ^d f(x) , dg(x) $ exists where $[c, d] $ is any arbitrary subinterval of $[a, b] $ and then show that the result in question.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Sep 4 at 7:40















Use the supremum-infinum approach. And join partitions together.
– Math_QED
Sep 3 at 10:55




Use the supremum-infinum approach. And join partitions together.
– Math_QED
Sep 3 at 10:55












I guess the main thing to worry about is the case when $f,g$ both have discontinuities at the point $c$. Can your tags be at an endpoint of the subinterval they correspond to?
– GEdgar
Sep 3 at 12:48




I guess the main thing to worry about is the case when $f,g$ both have discontinuities at the point $c$. Can your tags be at an endpoint of the subinterval they correspond to?
– GEdgar
Sep 3 at 12:48












Yes, endpoints of subintervals can be tags as well. Does this cause a problem?
– David
Sep 3 at 13:32





Yes, endpoints of subintervals can be tags as well. Does this cause a problem?
– David
Sep 3 at 13:32













This is a difficult theorem. First one proves that if $int_a ^b f(x) , dg(x) $ exists then $int_c ^d f(x) , dg(x) $ exists where $[c, d] $ is any arbitrary subinterval of $[a, b] $ and then show that the result in question.
– Paramanand Singh
Sep 4 at 7:40




This is a difficult theorem. First one proves that if $int_a ^b f(x) , dg(x) $ exists then $int_c ^d f(x) , dg(x) $ exists where $[c, d] $ is any arbitrary subinterval of $[a, b] $ and then show that the result in question.
– Paramanand Singh
Sep 4 at 7:40










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













Expanding my comment into an answer.




You need to use Cauchy condition for integrability:




Cauchy's Condition: $f$ is integrable with respect to $g$ on $[a, b] $ if and only if for every $epsilon >0$ there is a $delta>0$ such that $|S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)|<epsilon $ for all partitions $P_1,P_2$ of $[a, b] $ with norm less than $delta $ and $T_1,T_2$ being arbitrary tags for $P_1,P_2$ respectively.




Using this we can prove the integrability of $f$ wrt $g$ on $[c, d] subseteq [a, b] $ if $f$ is integrable wrt $g$ on $[a, b] $. Let's begin with an arbitrary $epsilon >0$ and choose $delta>0$ which meets the Cauchy condition for $f, g$ on $[a, b]$. If $P_1,P_2$ are arbitrary partitions of $[c, d] $ with norm less than $delta$ and $T_1,T_2$ corresponding choice of tags then it is possible to extend these to partitions $P'_1,P'_2$ of $[a, b] $ and choose tags $T'_1,T'_2$ accordingly such that $$S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)=S(P'_1,T'_1,f,g)-S(P'_2,T'_2,f,g)$$ and then for Cauchy condition the same $delta$ works for $f, g$ on $[c, d]$.



Now using Riemann Stieltjes sums you can prove your desired result.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Isn't the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral equivalent to the Darboux-Stieltjes integral which in general is not equivalent to the Riemann-Stieltjes integral? Thus considering the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral may not be enough, or am I wrong?
    – David
    Sep 4 at 10:44










  • @David: The integral is my answer is Riemann Stieltjes integral. And the name Cauchy is added because such conditions as in the theorem mentioned are usually called Cauchy condition.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Sep 4 at 11:05











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: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
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%2f2903696%2fhow-to-prove-that-int-ab-int-ac-int-cb-for-riemann-stieltjes-integra%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













Expanding my comment into an answer.




You need to use Cauchy condition for integrability:




Cauchy's Condition: $f$ is integrable with respect to $g$ on $[a, b] $ if and only if for every $epsilon >0$ there is a $delta>0$ such that $|S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)|<epsilon $ for all partitions $P_1,P_2$ of $[a, b] $ with norm less than $delta $ and $T_1,T_2$ being arbitrary tags for $P_1,P_2$ respectively.




Using this we can prove the integrability of $f$ wrt $g$ on $[c, d] subseteq [a, b] $ if $f$ is integrable wrt $g$ on $[a, b] $. Let's begin with an arbitrary $epsilon >0$ and choose $delta>0$ which meets the Cauchy condition for $f, g$ on $[a, b]$. If $P_1,P_2$ are arbitrary partitions of $[c, d] $ with norm less than $delta$ and $T_1,T_2$ corresponding choice of tags then it is possible to extend these to partitions $P'_1,P'_2$ of $[a, b] $ and choose tags $T'_1,T'_2$ accordingly such that $$S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)=S(P'_1,T'_1,f,g)-S(P'_2,T'_2,f,g)$$ and then for Cauchy condition the same $delta$ works for $f, g$ on $[c, d]$.



Now using Riemann Stieltjes sums you can prove your desired result.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Isn't the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral equivalent to the Darboux-Stieltjes integral which in general is not equivalent to the Riemann-Stieltjes integral? Thus considering the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral may not be enough, or am I wrong?
    – David
    Sep 4 at 10:44










  • @David: The integral is my answer is Riemann Stieltjes integral. And the name Cauchy is added because such conditions as in the theorem mentioned are usually called Cauchy condition.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Sep 4 at 11:05















up vote
0
down vote













Expanding my comment into an answer.




You need to use Cauchy condition for integrability:




Cauchy's Condition: $f$ is integrable with respect to $g$ on $[a, b] $ if and only if for every $epsilon >0$ there is a $delta>0$ such that $|S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)|<epsilon $ for all partitions $P_1,P_2$ of $[a, b] $ with norm less than $delta $ and $T_1,T_2$ being arbitrary tags for $P_1,P_2$ respectively.




Using this we can prove the integrability of $f$ wrt $g$ on $[c, d] subseteq [a, b] $ if $f$ is integrable wrt $g$ on $[a, b] $. Let's begin with an arbitrary $epsilon >0$ and choose $delta>0$ which meets the Cauchy condition for $f, g$ on $[a, b]$. If $P_1,P_2$ are arbitrary partitions of $[c, d] $ with norm less than $delta$ and $T_1,T_2$ corresponding choice of tags then it is possible to extend these to partitions $P'_1,P'_2$ of $[a, b] $ and choose tags $T'_1,T'_2$ accordingly such that $$S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)=S(P'_1,T'_1,f,g)-S(P'_2,T'_2,f,g)$$ and then for Cauchy condition the same $delta$ works for $f, g$ on $[c, d]$.



Now using Riemann Stieltjes sums you can prove your desired result.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Isn't the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral equivalent to the Darboux-Stieltjes integral which in general is not equivalent to the Riemann-Stieltjes integral? Thus considering the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral may not be enough, or am I wrong?
    – David
    Sep 4 at 10:44










  • @David: The integral is my answer is Riemann Stieltjes integral. And the name Cauchy is added because such conditions as in the theorem mentioned are usually called Cauchy condition.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Sep 4 at 11:05













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









Expanding my comment into an answer.




You need to use Cauchy condition for integrability:




Cauchy's Condition: $f$ is integrable with respect to $g$ on $[a, b] $ if and only if for every $epsilon >0$ there is a $delta>0$ such that $|S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)|<epsilon $ for all partitions $P_1,P_2$ of $[a, b] $ with norm less than $delta $ and $T_1,T_2$ being arbitrary tags for $P_1,P_2$ respectively.




Using this we can prove the integrability of $f$ wrt $g$ on $[c, d] subseteq [a, b] $ if $f$ is integrable wrt $g$ on $[a, b] $. Let's begin with an arbitrary $epsilon >0$ and choose $delta>0$ which meets the Cauchy condition for $f, g$ on $[a, b]$. If $P_1,P_2$ are arbitrary partitions of $[c, d] $ with norm less than $delta$ and $T_1,T_2$ corresponding choice of tags then it is possible to extend these to partitions $P'_1,P'_2$ of $[a, b] $ and choose tags $T'_1,T'_2$ accordingly such that $$S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)=S(P'_1,T'_1,f,g)-S(P'_2,T'_2,f,g)$$ and then for Cauchy condition the same $delta$ works for $f, g$ on $[c, d]$.



Now using Riemann Stieltjes sums you can prove your desired result.






share|cite|improve this answer












Expanding my comment into an answer.




You need to use Cauchy condition for integrability:




Cauchy's Condition: $f$ is integrable with respect to $g$ on $[a, b] $ if and only if for every $epsilon >0$ there is a $delta>0$ such that $|S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)|<epsilon $ for all partitions $P_1,P_2$ of $[a, b] $ with norm less than $delta $ and $T_1,T_2$ being arbitrary tags for $P_1,P_2$ respectively.




Using this we can prove the integrability of $f$ wrt $g$ on $[c, d] subseteq [a, b] $ if $f$ is integrable wrt $g$ on $[a, b] $. Let's begin with an arbitrary $epsilon >0$ and choose $delta>0$ which meets the Cauchy condition for $f, g$ on $[a, b]$. If $P_1,P_2$ are arbitrary partitions of $[c, d] $ with norm less than $delta$ and $T_1,T_2$ corresponding choice of tags then it is possible to extend these to partitions $P'_1,P'_2$ of $[a, b] $ and choose tags $T'_1,T'_2$ accordingly such that $$S(P_1,T_1,f,g)-S(P_2,T_2,f,g)=S(P'_1,T'_1,f,g)-S(P'_2,T'_2,f,g)$$ and then for Cauchy condition the same $delta$ works for $f, g$ on $[c, d]$.



Now using Riemann Stieltjes sums you can prove your desired result.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Sep 4 at 10:38









Paramanand Singh

45.6k554144




45.6k554144











  • Isn't the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral equivalent to the Darboux-Stieltjes integral which in general is not equivalent to the Riemann-Stieltjes integral? Thus considering the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral may not be enough, or am I wrong?
    – David
    Sep 4 at 10:44










  • @David: The integral is my answer is Riemann Stieltjes integral. And the name Cauchy is added because such conditions as in the theorem mentioned are usually called Cauchy condition.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Sep 4 at 11:05

















  • Isn't the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral equivalent to the Darboux-Stieltjes integral which in general is not equivalent to the Riemann-Stieltjes integral? Thus considering the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral may not be enough, or am I wrong?
    – David
    Sep 4 at 10:44










  • @David: The integral is my answer is Riemann Stieltjes integral. And the name Cauchy is added because such conditions as in the theorem mentioned are usually called Cauchy condition.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Sep 4 at 11:05
















Isn't the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral equivalent to the Darboux-Stieltjes integral which in general is not equivalent to the Riemann-Stieltjes integral? Thus considering the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral may not be enough, or am I wrong?
– David
Sep 4 at 10:44




Isn't the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral equivalent to the Darboux-Stieltjes integral which in general is not equivalent to the Riemann-Stieltjes integral? Thus considering the Cauchy-Stieltjes integral may not be enough, or am I wrong?
– David
Sep 4 at 10:44












@David: The integral is my answer is Riemann Stieltjes integral. And the name Cauchy is added because such conditions as in the theorem mentioned are usually called Cauchy condition.
– Paramanand Singh
Sep 4 at 11:05





@David: The integral is my answer is Riemann Stieltjes integral. And the name Cauchy is added because such conditions as in the theorem mentioned are usually called Cauchy condition.
– Paramanand Singh
Sep 4 at 11:05


















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2903696%2fhow-to-prove-that-int-ab-int-ac-int-cb-for-riemann-stieltjes-integra%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?