MHB Fundamental Theorem Of Calculus (Second Form) - B&S Theorem 7.3.5 .... ....

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Introduction to Real Analysis" (Fourth Edition) by Robert G Bartle and Donald R Sherbert ...

I am focused on Chapter 7: The Riemann Integral ...

I need help in fully understanding an aspect of the proof of Theorem 7.3.5 ...Theorem 7.3.5 and its proof ... ... read as follows:
View attachment 7325In the above proof from Bartle and Sherbert we read the following:

" ... ... Now on the interval $$[c, c + h]$$ the function $$f$$ satisfies inequality (4), so that we have

$$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le F( c + h ) - F(c) = \int^{ c + h }_c f \le ( f(c) + \epsilon ) \cdot h$$

... ... "Can someone please demonstrate rigorously and in detail how Bartle and Sherbert arrived at

$$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le F( c + h ) - F(c) = \int^{ c + h }_c f \le ( f(c) + \epsilon ) \cdot h$$ ... ... ?Peter================================================================================

It may help readers of the above post to have access to B&S's definition of the indefinite integral of $$f$$ ... ... so I am providing the same ... ... as follows:View attachment 7326
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading "Introduction to Real Analysis" (Fourth Edition) by Robert G Bartle and Donald R Sherbert ...

I am focused on Chapter 7: The Riemann Integral ...

I need help in fully understanding an aspect of the proof of Theorem 7.3.5 ...Theorem 7.3.5 and its proof ... ... read as follows:
In the above proof from Bartle and Sherbert we read the following:

" ... ... Now on the interval $$[c, c + h]$$ the function $$f$$ satisfies inequality (4), so that we have

$$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le F( c + h ) - F(c) = \int^{ c + h }_c f \le ( f(c) + \epsilon ) \cdot h$$

... ... "Can someone please demonstrate rigorously and in detail how Bartle and Sherbert arrived at

$$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le F( c + h ) - F(c) = \int^{ c + h }_c f \le ( f(c) + \epsilon ) \cdot h$$ ... ... ?Peter================================================================================

It may help readers of the above post to have access to B&S's definition of the indefinite integral of $$f$$ ... ... so I am providing the same ... ... as follows:
On reflection I think that the explanation for my question is as follows:

Since $$f(c) - \epsilon$$ is less than $$f(x)$$ for all $$x$$ in $$c \le x \lt c + h$$ ... ... ... we have that $$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le \int^{ c + h }_c f$$ ... ...Is that basically the correct explanation ... ... ?Peter
 
Peter said:
On reflection I think that the explanation for my question is as follows:

Since $$f(c) - \epsilon$$ is less than $$f(x)$$ for all $$x$$ in $$c \le x \lt c + h$$ ... ... ... we have that $$( f(c) - \epsilon ) \cdot h \le \int^{ c + h }_c f$$ ... ...Is that basically the correct explanation ... ... ?
Yes. :)
 
I posted this question on math-stackexchange but apparently I asked something stupid and I was downvoted. I still don't have an answer to my question so I hope someone in here can help me or at least explain me why I am asking something stupid. I started studying Complex Analysis and came upon the following theorem which is a direct consequence of the Cauchy-Goursat theorem: Let ##f:D\to\mathbb{C}## be an anlytic function over a simply connected region ##D##. If ##a## and ##z## are part of...
Back
Top