- #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
- 3,998
- 48
I am reading John B. Conway's book, "Functions of a Complex Variable I" (Second Edition) ...
I am currently focussed on Chapter IV: Complex Integration ... Section 1: Riemann-Stieljes Integral ... ...
I need help in fully understanding another aspect of the proof of Proposition 1.3 ...Proposition 1.3 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 7439
View attachment 7440
View attachment 7441
In the above text from Conway we read the following:
" ... ... Hence
\(\displaystyle
\int_a^b \lvert \gamma' (t) \rvert \ dt \le \epsilon + \sum_{ k = 1 }^m \lvert \gamma' ( \tau_k ) \rvert ( t_k - t_{ k - 1 } )\)\(\displaystyle = \epsilon + \sum_{ k = 1 }^m \left\lvert \int_{ t_{ k-1 }}^{ t_k } \gamma' ( \tau_k ) dt \right\rvert \) ... ..."
Can someone please explain exactly how/why \(\displaystyle \sum_{ k = 1 }^m \lvert \gamma' ( \tau_k ) \rvert ( t_k - t_{ k - 1 } ) = \sum_{ k = 1 }^m \left\lvert \int_{ t_{ k-1 }}^{ t_k } \gamma' ( \tau_k ) dt \right\rvert\)as is implied by the above quote from Conway ... ...?*** NOTE *** Seems as if Conway is treating \(\displaystyle \gamma' ( \tau_k )\) as a constant ... but why ...?Help will be much appreciated ... ...
Peter
I am currently focussed on Chapter IV: Complex Integration ... Section 1: Riemann-Stieljes Integral ... ...
I need help in fully understanding another aspect of the proof of Proposition 1.3 ...Proposition 1.3 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 7439
View attachment 7440
View attachment 7441
In the above text from Conway we read the following:
" ... ... Hence
\(\displaystyle
\int_a^b \lvert \gamma' (t) \rvert \ dt \le \epsilon + \sum_{ k = 1 }^m \lvert \gamma' ( \tau_k ) \rvert ( t_k - t_{ k - 1 } )\)\(\displaystyle = \epsilon + \sum_{ k = 1 }^m \left\lvert \int_{ t_{ k-1 }}^{ t_k } \gamma' ( \tau_k ) dt \right\rvert \) ... ..."
Can someone please explain exactly how/why \(\displaystyle \sum_{ k = 1 }^m \lvert \gamma' ( \tau_k ) \rvert ( t_k - t_{ k - 1 } ) = \sum_{ k = 1 }^m \left\lvert \int_{ t_{ k-1 }}^{ t_k } \gamma' ( \tau_k ) dt \right\rvert\)as is implied by the above quote from Conway ... ...?*** NOTE *** Seems as if Conway is treating \(\displaystyle \gamma' ( \tau_k )\) as a constant ... but why ...?Help will be much appreciated ... ...
Peter
Last edited: