(Baby Rudin) ch6 Theorem 6.11 (The Riemann-Stieltjes Integral)









up vote
3
down vote

favorite












Ch6 Thm 6.11
The theorem and the proof above is from Rudin.
I have a question about the last part of the proof.
For the inequality $sum_i in A(M_i^*-m^*_i)Deltaalpha_i+sum_i in B(M_i^*-m^*_i)Deltaalpha_i le epsilon[alpha(b) - alpha(a)]+2Kdelta$, I understand that the second term in the right side is made so because $M_i^*-m^*_ile2K$ for $iin B$ and $sum_i in BDeltaalpha_i<delta$ as proved in the proof. However, as for the first term in the right side of the inequality, How do we know that $alpha(b)$ and $-alpha(a)$ terms are in $sum_i in A Delta alpha_i$? $A$ might not contain $1$ and $n$ so that $Deltaalpha(x_n)=alpha(b) - alpha(x_n-1)$ and $Deltaalpha(x_1)=alpha(x_1)-alpha(a)$ are not a part of $sum_i in A Delta alpha_i$.



Thank you in advance!










share|cite|improve this question























  • What is $alpha$? Is it an increasing function?
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Nov 10 at 3:48










  • Yes. According to Rudin, $alpha$ is a monotonically increasing function on $[a, b]$ which is bounded.
    – Hunnam
    Nov 10 at 3:49










  • Note that $A subseteq 1,2,dots,n$.
    – xbh
    Nov 10 at 3:54














up vote
3
down vote

favorite












Ch6 Thm 6.11
The theorem and the proof above is from Rudin.
I have a question about the last part of the proof.
For the inequality $sum_i in A(M_i^*-m^*_i)Deltaalpha_i+sum_i in B(M_i^*-m^*_i)Deltaalpha_i le epsilon[alpha(b) - alpha(a)]+2Kdelta$, I understand that the second term in the right side is made so because $M_i^*-m^*_ile2K$ for $iin B$ and $sum_i in BDeltaalpha_i<delta$ as proved in the proof. However, as for the first term in the right side of the inequality, How do we know that $alpha(b)$ and $-alpha(a)$ terms are in $sum_i in A Delta alpha_i$? $A$ might not contain $1$ and $n$ so that $Deltaalpha(x_n)=alpha(b) - alpha(x_n-1)$ and $Deltaalpha(x_1)=alpha(x_1)-alpha(a)$ are not a part of $sum_i in A Delta alpha_i$.



Thank you in advance!










share|cite|improve this question























  • What is $alpha$? Is it an increasing function?
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Nov 10 at 3:48










  • Yes. According to Rudin, $alpha$ is a monotonically increasing function on $[a, b]$ which is bounded.
    – Hunnam
    Nov 10 at 3:49










  • Note that $A subseteq 1,2,dots,n$.
    – xbh
    Nov 10 at 3:54












up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











Ch6 Thm 6.11
The theorem and the proof above is from Rudin.
I have a question about the last part of the proof.
For the inequality $sum_i in A(M_i^*-m^*_i)Deltaalpha_i+sum_i in B(M_i^*-m^*_i)Deltaalpha_i le epsilon[alpha(b) - alpha(a)]+2Kdelta$, I understand that the second term in the right side is made so because $M_i^*-m^*_ile2K$ for $iin B$ and $sum_i in BDeltaalpha_i<delta$ as proved in the proof. However, as for the first term in the right side of the inequality, How do we know that $alpha(b)$ and $-alpha(a)$ terms are in $sum_i in A Delta alpha_i$? $A$ might not contain $1$ and $n$ so that $Deltaalpha(x_n)=alpha(b) - alpha(x_n-1)$ and $Deltaalpha(x_1)=alpha(x_1)-alpha(a)$ are not a part of $sum_i in A Delta alpha_i$.



Thank you in advance!










share|cite|improve this question















Ch6 Thm 6.11
The theorem and the proof above is from Rudin.
I have a question about the last part of the proof.
For the inequality $sum_i in A(M_i^*-m^*_i)Deltaalpha_i+sum_i in B(M_i^*-m^*_i)Deltaalpha_i le epsilon[alpha(b) - alpha(a)]+2Kdelta$, I understand that the second term in the right side is made so because $M_i^*-m^*_ile2K$ for $iin B$ and $sum_i in BDeltaalpha_i<delta$ as proved in the proof. However, as for the first term in the right side of the inequality, How do we know that $alpha(b)$ and $-alpha(a)$ terms are in $sum_i in A Delta alpha_i$? $A$ might not contain $1$ and $n$ so that $Deltaalpha(x_n)=alpha(b) - alpha(x_n-1)$ and $Deltaalpha(x_1)=alpha(x_1)-alpha(a)$ are not a part of $sum_i in A Delta alpha_i$.



Thank you in advance!







real-analysis general-topology analysis riemann-integration stieltjes-integral






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 10 at 7:57









Henno Brandsma

102k345109




102k345109










asked Nov 10 at 3:44









Hunnam

665




665











  • What is $alpha$? Is it an increasing function?
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Nov 10 at 3:48










  • Yes. According to Rudin, $alpha$ is a monotonically increasing function on $[a, b]$ which is bounded.
    – Hunnam
    Nov 10 at 3:49










  • Note that $A subseteq 1,2,dots,n$.
    – xbh
    Nov 10 at 3:54
















  • What is $alpha$? Is it an increasing function?
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Nov 10 at 3:48










  • Yes. According to Rudin, $alpha$ is a monotonically increasing function on $[a, b]$ which is bounded.
    – Hunnam
    Nov 10 at 3:49










  • Note that $A subseteq 1,2,dots,n$.
    – xbh
    Nov 10 at 3:54















What is $alpha$? Is it an increasing function?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 10 at 3:48




What is $alpha$? Is it an increasing function?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 10 at 3:48












Yes. According to Rudin, $alpha$ is a monotonically increasing function on $[a, b]$ which is bounded.
– Hunnam
Nov 10 at 3:49




Yes. According to Rudin, $alpha$ is a monotonically increasing function on $[a, b]$ which is bounded.
– Hunnam
Nov 10 at 3:49












Note that $A subseteq 1,2,dots,n$.
– xbh
Nov 10 at 3:54




Note that $A subseteq 1,2,dots,n$.
– xbh
Nov 10 at 3:54










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










Each $M_i^*-m_i^*ge0$ and $Deltaalpha_ige0$ as $alpha_igealpha_i-1$.
Also $M_i^*-m_i^*leepsilon$ for $iin A$. Therefore
$$sum_iin A(M_i^*-m_i^*)Deltaalpha_ileepsilonsum_iin A
Deltaalpha_i.$$

But
$$sum_iin ADeltaalpha_ilesum_i=1^nDeltaalpha_i=alpha(b)-alpha(a)$$
as $Deltaalpha_ige0$ for $inotin A$. Putting this together
gives the given bound.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Since $M_i - m_i geqslant 0$ (supremum minus infimum) and $alpha$ is increasing we have



    $$sum_i in A(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant sum_i =1^n(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant epsilon[alpha(b) - alpha(a)]$$






    share|cite|improve this answer




















      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: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      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%2f2992216%2fbaby-rudin-ch6-theorem-6-11-the-riemann-stieltjes-integral%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      3
      down vote



      accepted










      Each $M_i^*-m_i^*ge0$ and $Deltaalpha_ige0$ as $alpha_igealpha_i-1$.
      Also $M_i^*-m_i^*leepsilon$ for $iin A$. Therefore
      $$sum_iin A(M_i^*-m_i^*)Deltaalpha_ileepsilonsum_iin A
      Deltaalpha_i.$$

      But
      $$sum_iin ADeltaalpha_ilesum_i=1^nDeltaalpha_i=alpha(b)-alpha(a)$$
      as $Deltaalpha_ige0$ for $inotin A$. Putting this together
      gives the given bound.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        3
        down vote



        accepted










        Each $M_i^*-m_i^*ge0$ and $Deltaalpha_ige0$ as $alpha_igealpha_i-1$.
        Also $M_i^*-m_i^*leepsilon$ for $iin A$. Therefore
        $$sum_iin A(M_i^*-m_i^*)Deltaalpha_ileepsilonsum_iin A
        Deltaalpha_i.$$

        But
        $$sum_iin ADeltaalpha_ilesum_i=1^nDeltaalpha_i=alpha(b)-alpha(a)$$
        as $Deltaalpha_ige0$ for $inotin A$. Putting this together
        gives the given bound.






        share|cite|improve this answer






















          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted






          Each $M_i^*-m_i^*ge0$ and $Deltaalpha_ige0$ as $alpha_igealpha_i-1$.
          Also $M_i^*-m_i^*leepsilon$ for $iin A$. Therefore
          $$sum_iin A(M_i^*-m_i^*)Deltaalpha_ileepsilonsum_iin A
          Deltaalpha_i.$$

          But
          $$sum_iin ADeltaalpha_ilesum_i=1^nDeltaalpha_i=alpha(b)-alpha(a)$$
          as $Deltaalpha_ige0$ for $inotin A$. Putting this together
          gives the given bound.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Each $M_i^*-m_i^*ge0$ and $Deltaalpha_ige0$ as $alpha_igealpha_i-1$.
          Also $M_i^*-m_i^*leepsilon$ for $iin A$. Therefore
          $$sum_iin A(M_i^*-m_i^*)Deltaalpha_ileepsilonsum_iin A
          Deltaalpha_i.$$

          But
          $$sum_iin ADeltaalpha_ilesum_i=1^nDeltaalpha_i=alpha(b)-alpha(a)$$
          as $Deltaalpha_ige0$ for $inotin A$. Putting this together
          gives the given bound.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 10 at 3:56









          Lord Shark the Unknown

          98.4k958131




          98.4k958131




















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              Since $M_i - m_i geqslant 0$ (supremum minus infimum) and $alpha$ is increasing we have



              $$sum_i in A(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant sum_i =1^n(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant epsilon[alpha(b) - alpha(a)]$$






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                Since $M_i - m_i geqslant 0$ (supremum minus infimum) and $alpha$ is increasing we have



                $$sum_i in A(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant sum_i =1^n(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant epsilon[alpha(b) - alpha(a)]$$






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  Since $M_i - m_i geqslant 0$ (supremum minus infimum) and $alpha$ is increasing we have



                  $$sum_i in A(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant sum_i =1^n(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant epsilon[alpha(b) - alpha(a)]$$






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Since $M_i - m_i geqslant 0$ (supremum minus infimum) and $alpha$ is increasing we have



                  $$sum_i in A(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant sum_i =1^n(M_i-m_i) Delta alpha_i leqslant epsilon[alpha(b) - alpha(a)]$$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 10 at 3:56









                  RRL

                  47.5k42369




                  47.5k42369



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2992216%2fbaby-rudin-ch6-theorem-6-11-the-riemann-stieltjes-integral%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to how show current date and time by default on contact form 7 in WordPress without taking input from user in datetimepicker

                      Syphilis

                      Darth Vader #20