4

Let $a$ and $b$ be any two real numbers such that $a < b$, and let $f$ be the real-valued function defined on $[a, b]$ by the formula $$ f(x) = \mathrm{e}^x \ \mbox{ for all } \ x \in [a, b]. $$

Then how to evaluate $$ \int_a^b f(x) \ \mathrm{d} x, $$ using the definition of the integral given here?

My Attempt:

Since $f$ is strictly increasing on $[a, b]$ [Can we show this fact using the machinery developed in the first seven chapters of Baby Rudin?], so it is Riemann-integrable on $[a, b]$; that is, the integral $\int_a^b f(x) \ \mathrm{d} x$ exists as a real number.

Thus the upper integral $\overline{\int}_a^b f $ and the lower integral $\underline{\int}_a^b f $ are equal, where $$ \overline{\int}_a^b f \colon= \inf \left\{ \ U(P, f) \ \colon P \mbox{ is a partition of the interval } [a, b] \ \right\}, $$ and $$ \underline{\int}_a^b f \colon= \sup \left\{ \ L(P, f) \ \colon P \mbox{ is a partition of the interval } [a, b] \ \right\}, $$

Thus, for every partition $P$ of $[a, b]$, we have $$ L(P, f) \leq \int_a^b f \leq U(P, f). $$

Again as $f$ is Riemann-integrable on $[a, b]$, so, corresponding to every real number $\varepsilon > 0$, we can find a partition $P_\varepsilon$ of $[a, b]$ such that $$ U \left( P_\varepsilon, f \right) - L \left( P_\varepsilon, f \right) < \varepsilon. $$

Now let $P \colon= \left\{ \ x_0, x_1, \ldots, x_{n-1}, x_n \ \right\}$ be any partition of the interval $[a, b]$, where $$ a = x_0 < x_1 < \cdots < x_{n-1} < x_n = b. $$ As $f$ is a monotonically increasing function on $[a, b]$, so for each $i = 1, \ldots, n$, we see that $$ m_i \colon= \inf \left\{ \ f(x) \ \colon \ x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \ \right\} = f \left( x_{i-1} \right) = \mathrm{e}^{x_{i-1}}, $$ and $$ M_i \colon= \sup \left\{ \ f(x) \ \colon \ x_{i-1} \leq x \leq x_i \ \right\} = f \left( x_{i} \right) = \mathrm{e}^{x_{i}}; $$ therefore we have $$ L(P, f) \colon= \sum_{i=1}^n m_i \left( x_i - x_{i-1} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{e}^{x_{i-1}} \left( x_i - x_{i-1} \right), $$ and $$ U(P, f) \colon= \sum_{i=1}^n M_i \left( x_i - x_{i-1} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{e}^{x_{i}} \left( x_i - x_{i-1} \right). $$

Now for each positive integer $n$, let $P_n$ be the partition of $[a, b]$ given by $$ P_n \colon= \left\{ \ a, a + \frac{b-a}{n}, a + \frac{2(b-a)}{n}, \ldots, a + \frac{ (n-1) ( b-a ) }{n}, b \ \right\}; $$ that is, $P_n$ partitions the interval $[a, b]$ into $n$ equal subintervals. Thus $$ P_n = \left\{ x_0, x_1, \ldots, x_n \ \right\}, $$ where $$ x_i \colon= a + \frac{ i(b-a)}{n} $$ for each $i = 1, \ldots, n$. Then we have $$ \begin{align} L \left( P_n, f \right) &= \sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{e}^{a + \frac{ (i-1)(b-a)}{n} } \frac{b-a}{n} \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ (i-1)(b-a)}{n} } \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \sum_{i=1}^n \left( \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } \right)^{i-1} \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left( \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } \right)^{i} \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \frac{ \left( \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } \right)^{n} - 1 }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \frac{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ n (b-a) }{n} } - 1 }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \frac{ \mathrm{e}^{b-a } - 1 }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \frac{ \mathrm{e}^{b } - \mathrm{e}^a }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \\ &= \frac{ \frac{b-a}{n} }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \left( \mathrm{e}^{b } - \mathrm{e}^a \right), \end{align} $$ and $$ \begin{align} U \left( P_n, f \right) &= \sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{e}^{a + \frac{ i(b-a)}{n} } \frac{b-a}{n} \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ i(b-a)}{n} } \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \sum_{i=1}^n \left( \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } \right)^{i} \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } \frac{ \left( \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } \right)^{n} - 1 }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } \frac{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ n (b-a) }{n} } - 1 }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^a \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } \frac{ \mathrm{e}^{b-a } - 1 }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } \frac{ \mathrm{e}^{b } - \mathrm{e}^a }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \frac{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \left( \mathrm{e}^{b } - \mathrm{e}^a \right) \\ &= \frac{b-a}{n} \left\{ 1 + \frac{1 }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \right\} \left( \mathrm{e}^{b } - \mathrm{e}^a \right) \\ &= \left\{ \frac{b-a}{n} + \frac{ \frac{b-a}{n} }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \right\} \left( \mathrm{e}^{b } - \mathrm{e}^a \right) . \end{align} $$

Is what I have done so far correct? If so, then what next? How to proceed from here, preferably using only the machinery developed by Walter Rudin as far as Chapter 7 in the book Principles of Mathematical Analysis, third edition?

P.S.:

We note that, for every partition $P$ of $[a, b]$, we have $$ L(P, f) \leq \underline{\int}_a^b f \leq \overline{\int}_a^b f \leq U(P, f). \tag{A} $$

Now from (A), we can conclude that, for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$, by using the partitions $P_n$, we have $$ L \left( P_n, f \right) \leq \underline{\int}_a^b f \leq \overline{\int}_a^b f \leq U \left( P_n, f \right); $$ that is, $$ \frac{ \frac{b-a}{n} }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \left( \mathrm{e}^{b } - \mathrm{e}^a \right) \leq \underline{\int}_a^b f \leq \overline{\int}_a^b f \leq \left\{ \frac{b-a}{n} + \frac{ \frac{b-a}{n} }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{ b-a}{n} } - 1 } \right\} \left( \mathrm{e}^{b } - \mathrm{e}^a \right) \tag{B} $$ for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$.

Now we see that $$ \begin{align} \lim_{r \to 0} \frac{ r }{ \mathrm{e}^r - 1 } &= \lim_{r \to 0} \frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^r - 0} \qquad \mbox{ [ using the L'Hosptial's rule ] } \\ &= \frac{1}{1} \\ &= 1. \tag{1} \end{align} $$

Now as $n \to \infty$, $(b-a)/n \to 0$, and so from (1) we can conclude that $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \frac{b-a}{n} }{ \mathrm{e}^{ \frac{b-a}{n} } - 1 } = 1. \tag{2} $$

Finally letting $n \to \infty$ in (B) and using (2), we find that $$ \mathrm{e}^b - \mathrm{e}^a \leq \underline{\int}_a^b f \leq \overline{\int}_a^b f \leq \mathrm{e}^{b } - \mathrm{e}^a. $$ Therefore $$ \underline{\int}_a^b f = \mathrm{e}^b - \mathrm{e}^a = \overline{\int}_a^b f. $$ That is, $$ \int_a^b f = \mathrm{e}^b - \mathrm{e}^a. $$

I hope I've completed the proof satisfacorily enough in the P.S., haven't I?

  • 1
    To show that $\exp$ is Riemann-integrable on $[a,b]$, why don't you use https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2319741/theorem-6-10-in-baby-rudin-if-f-is-bounded-on-a-b-with-only-finitely-man ? – paf Jun 24 '18 at 15:09

1 Answers1

1

What you did is correct. To conclude, just look at the limits of $L(P_n,f)$ and $U(P_n,f)$ when $n\to +\infty$. You can see easily that this limit is $\text{e}^b-\text{e}^a$: this is the integral $$\int_a^b \text{e}^x \text{ d}x.$$

Edit: To precise this answer, note that I use Theorem 6.6 in Baby Rudin, 3rd edition (see here):

$f \in \mathscr{R}(\alpha)$ on $[a, b]$ if and only if for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P$ such that $$ U(P, f, \alpha) - L(P, f, \alpha) < \varepsilon.$$

Since $\displaystyle \lim_{n\to+\infty} L(P_n,f) -U(P_n,f) = 0$, we see that for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $n_{\varepsilon}$ such that the partition $P=P_{n_{\varepsilon}}$ such that $$ U(P, f) - L(P, f) < \varepsilon.$$

paf
  • 4,403
  • how do we justify taking the limit of $L \left( P_n, f \right)$ and $U \left( P_n, f \right)$ as $n \to \infty$ and then the conclusion that you have arrived at? You see, we have to use the Definition 6.1 in the book Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin, 3rd edition. I've included a link to another post of mine where the relevant definition(s) is (are) given. – Saaqib Mahmood Jun 24 '18 at 15:26
  • See my edit above. – paf Jun 24 '18 at 16:35
  • please have a look at my post now after I've edited it to add a P.S. I'm sure you'd like it better this time around. – Saaqib Mahmood Jun 25 '18 at 15:39
  • For me, what you wrote in your PS is correct. – paf Jun 26 '18 at 18:53