The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Indefinite integral implies Definite integral?
Replies: 5   Last Post: Aug 7, 2011 3:48 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 29
Registered: 4/19/11
Re: Indefinite integral implies Definite integral?
Posted: Aug 6, 2011 4:01 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
Kenshin <> wrote:

> Let f : [a,b] -> R be differentiable everywhere and f ' be the
> derivative of f.
> I've heard that
> 1) f ' may not be Riemann integrable.
> 2) f ' may not be even Lebesgue integrable.
> Can you give an example of this?

1) Correct. For one thing, f' need not be bounded on [a,b] (hence f'
is not RI on [a,b]). Example: f(x) = x^2*sin(1/x^2) on [0,1]. Even if
f' is bounded on [a,b], it need not be RI there. Recall that a bounded
function on [a,b] is RI iff the set of its discontinuities has measure
0. But one can construct a differentiable f on [a,b] with f' bounded,
but with f' discontinuous on a set of large measure.

2) f' will be Lebesgue measurable, certainly. But we can have int_a^b
|f'(x)| dx = oo. In fact f(x) = x^2*sin(1/x^2) has this property. More
exotic counterexamples can be constructed here.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.