- #1
AxiomOfChoice
- 533
- 1
Let [itex]f[/itex] be a Riemann integrable function defined on an interval [itex][a,b][/itex], and let [itex]P = \{a = x_0 < x_1 < \ldots < x_n = b\}[/itex] be a partition of [itex][a,b][/itex]. I don't understand why the definition of (say) the upper Riemann sum of [itex]f[/itex] associated with [itex]P[/itex] is always given as
[tex]
U(f,P) = \sum_{i=1}^n M_i (x_i - x_{i-1}),
[/tex]
where
[tex]
M_i = \sup\limits_{x\in [x_{i-1},x_i]} f(x).
[/tex]
Why does it need to be [itex]\sup[/itex]? Why can't it just be [itex]\max[/itex]? I can't think of an instance where [itex]\max[/itex] wouldn't be suitable; that is, I can't think of a Riemann integrable function that doesn't actually attain its max somewhere on any given [itex][x_{i-1},x_i][/itex]. Can someone provide an example for me?
[tex]
U(f,P) = \sum_{i=1}^n M_i (x_i - x_{i-1}),
[/tex]
where
[tex]
M_i = \sup\limits_{x\in [x_{i-1},x_i]} f(x).
[/tex]
Why does it need to be [itex]\sup[/itex]? Why can't it just be [itex]\max[/itex]? I can't think of an instance where [itex]\max[/itex] wouldn't be suitable; that is, I can't think of a Riemann integrable function that doesn't actually attain its max somewhere on any given [itex][x_{i-1},x_i][/itex]. Can someone provide an example for me?