My math prof does not have a proof for this: Existence of improper integrals for $lim_{kto infty}...












1












$begingroup$


In our analysis lecture our professor talked about the following assumption to which he said, that he does not have a proof:




If for all sequences $(a_k)_{kin mathbb{N}},(b_k)_{kin mathbb{N}}$
with $a_kto -infty, b_kto infty$ already $lim_{kto infty}
int_{a_k}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x=alpha$ holds (meaning that the
limit is distinct and it exists), then the following improper integrals
exist as well: $int_0^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{-infty}^0
f(x)mathrm{d}x$ and it is $alpha=int_{-infty}^0
f(x)mathrm{d}x+int_0^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x$.




Now the problem:



We only presuppose the convergence of $int_{a_k}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$
. In doing so, constant sequences $a_k$ or $b_k$ are excluded since $a_kto -infty$ and $b_kto infty$ have to hold.



How does the convergence of $ int_{0}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{a_k}^{0} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ follow now? Needless to say, the $0$ can of course be replaced by another constant.



If we assume the existence of two sequences $a_k$ or $b_k$, for which that does not apply, then it's probably possible to do a proof by contradiction (if one skillfully considers subsequences). Most likely a lot of cases have to be distinguished, because one does not know why both part-integrals $int_{0}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{a_k}^{0} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ not converge. They could be unbounded, or oscillating (or jump back and forth) or both.



Does someone here know how to prove the assumption or know where I can find such a proof on the internet? (Because my professor said that he doesn't have an obvious solution to this question)






integration sequences-and-series analysis proof-writing improper-integrals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Suppose there is an $epsilon>0$ such that for all $n in mathbb{N}$ there is a value $c_n>n$ such that $|int_n^{c_n} f(x)dx|>epsilon$. So consider $int_{-n}^{c_n} f(x)dx = int_{-n}^{n} f(x)dx + int_n^{c_n}f(x)dx$ as $nrightarrowinfty$.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    Dec 18 '18 at 12:37








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think it would depend on how you treat certain improper integrals. If you allow Cauchy principal value integrals, then you could have (for example) $int_{-1}^1f(x),dx=0$ while $int_{-1}^0f(x),dx$ and $int_0^1f(x),dx$ both are undefined.
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:20


















1












$begingroup$


In our analysis lecture our professor talked about the following assumption to which he said, that he does not have a proof:




If for all sequences $(a_k)_{kin mathbb{N}},(b_k)_{kin mathbb{N}}$
with $a_kto -infty, b_kto infty$ already $lim_{kto infty}
int_{a_k}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x=alpha$ holds (meaning that the
limit is distinct and it exists), then the following improper integrals
exist as well: $int_0^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{-infty}^0
f(x)mathrm{d}x$ and it is $alpha=int_{-infty}^0
f(x)mathrm{d}x+int_0^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x$.




Now the problem:



We only presuppose the convergence of $int_{a_k}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$
. In doing so, constant sequences $a_k$ or $b_k$ are excluded since $a_kto -infty$ and $b_kto infty$ have to hold.



How does the convergence of $ int_{0}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{a_k}^{0} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ follow now? Needless to say, the $0$ can of course be replaced by another constant.



If we assume the existence of two sequences $a_k$ or $b_k$, for which that does not apply, then it's probably possible to do a proof by contradiction (if one skillfully considers subsequences). Most likely a lot of cases have to be distinguished, because one does not know why both part-integrals $int_{0}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{a_k}^{0} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ not converge. They could be unbounded, or oscillating (or jump back and forth) or both.



Does someone here know how to prove the assumption or know where I can find such a proof on the internet? (Because my professor said that he doesn't have an obvious solution to this question)






integration sequences-and-series analysis proof-writing improper-integrals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Suppose there is an $epsilon>0$ such that for all $n in mathbb{N}$ there is a value $c_n>n$ such that $|int_n^{c_n} f(x)dx|>epsilon$. So consider $int_{-n}^{c_n} f(x)dx = int_{-n}^{n} f(x)dx + int_n^{c_n}f(x)dx$ as $nrightarrowinfty$.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    Dec 18 '18 at 12:37








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think it would depend on how you treat certain improper integrals. If you allow Cauchy principal value integrals, then you could have (for example) $int_{-1}^1f(x),dx=0$ while $int_{-1}^0f(x),dx$ and $int_0^1f(x),dx$ both are undefined.
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:20
















1












1








1


1



$begingroup$


In our analysis lecture our professor talked about the following assumption to which he said, that he does not have a proof:




If for all sequences $(a_k)_{kin mathbb{N}},(b_k)_{kin mathbb{N}}$
with $a_kto -infty, b_kto infty$ already $lim_{kto infty}
int_{a_k}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x=alpha$ holds (meaning that the
limit is distinct and it exists), then the following improper integrals
exist as well: $int_0^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{-infty}^0
f(x)mathrm{d}x$ and it is $alpha=int_{-infty}^0
f(x)mathrm{d}x+int_0^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x$.




Now the problem:



We only presuppose the convergence of $int_{a_k}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$
. In doing so, constant sequences $a_k$ or $b_k$ are excluded since $a_kto -infty$ and $b_kto infty$ have to hold.



How does the convergence of $ int_{0}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{a_k}^{0} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ follow now? Needless to say, the $0$ can of course be replaced by another constant.



If we assume the existence of two sequences $a_k$ or $b_k$, for which that does not apply, then it's probably possible to do a proof by contradiction (if one skillfully considers subsequences). Most likely a lot of cases have to be distinguished, because one does not know why both part-integrals $int_{0}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{a_k}^{0} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ not converge. They could be unbounded, or oscillating (or jump back and forth) or both.



Does someone here know how to prove the assumption or know where I can find such a proof on the internet? (Because my professor said that he doesn't have an obvious solution to this question)






integration sequences-and-series analysis proof-writing improper-integrals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




In our analysis lecture our professor talked about the following assumption to which he said, that he does not have a proof:




If for all sequences $(a_k)_{kin mathbb{N}},(b_k)_{kin mathbb{N}}$
with $a_kto -infty, b_kto infty$ already $lim_{kto infty}
int_{a_k}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x=alpha$ holds (meaning that the
limit is distinct and it exists), then the following improper integrals
exist as well: $int_0^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{-infty}^0
f(x)mathrm{d}x$ and it is $alpha=int_{-infty}^0
f(x)mathrm{d}x+int_0^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x$.




Now the problem:



We only presuppose the convergence of $int_{a_k}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$
. In doing so, constant sequences $a_k$ or $b_k$ are excluded since $a_kto -infty$ and $b_kto infty$ have to hold.



How does the convergence of $ int_{0}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{a_k}^{0} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ follow now? Needless to say, the $0$ can of course be replaced by another constant.



If we assume the existence of two sequences $a_k$ or $b_k$, for which that does not apply, then it's probably possible to do a proof by contradiction (if one skillfully considers subsequences). Most likely a lot of cases have to be distinguished, because one does not know why both part-integrals $int_{0}^{b_k} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ and $int_{a_k}^{0} f(x),mathrm{d}x$ not converge. They could be unbounded, or oscillating (or jump back and forth) or both.



Does someone here know how to prove the assumption or know where I can find such a proof on the internet? (Because my professor said that he doesn't have an obvious solution to this question)






integration sequences-and-series analysis proof-writing improper-integrals




integration sequences-and-series analysis proof-writing improper-integrals






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 18 '18 at 12:48







NotEinstein

















asked Dec 18 '18 at 12:09









NotEinsteinNotEinstein

2146




2146








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Suppose there is an $epsilon>0$ such that for all $n in mathbb{N}$ there is a value $c_n>n$ such that $|int_n^{c_n} f(x)dx|>epsilon$. So consider $int_{-n}^{c_n} f(x)dx = int_{-n}^{n} f(x)dx + int_n^{c_n}f(x)dx$ as $nrightarrowinfty$.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    Dec 18 '18 at 12:37








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think it would depend on how you treat certain improper integrals. If you allow Cauchy principal value integrals, then you could have (for example) $int_{-1}^1f(x),dx=0$ while $int_{-1}^0f(x),dx$ and $int_0^1f(x),dx$ both are undefined.
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:20
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Suppose there is an $epsilon>0$ such that for all $n in mathbb{N}$ there is a value $c_n>n$ such that $|int_n^{c_n} f(x)dx|>epsilon$. So consider $int_{-n}^{c_n} f(x)dx = int_{-n}^{n} f(x)dx + int_n^{c_n}f(x)dx$ as $nrightarrowinfty$.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    Dec 18 '18 at 12:37








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think it would depend on how you treat certain improper integrals. If you allow Cauchy principal value integrals, then you could have (for example) $int_{-1}^1f(x),dx=0$ while $int_{-1}^0f(x),dx$ and $int_0^1f(x),dx$ both are undefined.
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:20










1




1




$begingroup$
Suppose there is an $epsilon>0$ such that for all $n in mathbb{N}$ there is a value $c_n>n$ such that $|int_n^{c_n} f(x)dx|>epsilon$. So consider $int_{-n}^{c_n} f(x)dx = int_{-n}^{n} f(x)dx + int_n^{c_n}f(x)dx$ as $nrightarrowinfty$.
$endgroup$
– Michael
Dec 18 '18 at 12:37






$begingroup$
Suppose there is an $epsilon>0$ such that for all $n in mathbb{N}$ there is a value $c_n>n$ such that $|int_n^{c_n} f(x)dx|>epsilon$. So consider $int_{-n}^{c_n} f(x)dx = int_{-n}^{n} f(x)dx + int_n^{c_n}f(x)dx$ as $nrightarrowinfty$.
$endgroup$
– Michael
Dec 18 '18 at 12:37






1




1




$begingroup$
I think it would depend on how you treat certain improper integrals. If you allow Cauchy principal value integrals, then you could have (for example) $int_{-1}^1f(x),dx=0$ while $int_{-1}^0f(x),dx$ and $int_0^1f(x),dx$ both are undefined.
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 18 '18 at 13:20






$begingroup$
I think it would depend on how you treat certain improper integrals. If you allow Cauchy principal value integrals, then you could have (for example) $int_{-1}^1f(x),dx=0$ while $int_{-1}^0f(x),dx$ and $int_0^1f(x),dx$ both are undefined.
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 18 '18 at 13:20












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

Let $b_k, c_k geq 0$ be sequences such that $lim_{ktoinfty} b_k = lim_{ktoinfty} c_k = infty$ and suppose that $b_k < c_k$ for all $k in mathbb{N}$. By assumption,



$$lim_{ktoinfty} int_{b_k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx = lim_{ktoinfty}left( int_{-k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx - int_{-k}^{b_k} f(x)~mathrm dx right) = alpha - alpha = 0.$$



By the Cauchy criterion (cf here), this shows that $$lim_{ytoinfty} int_{0}^{y} f(x)~mathrm d x $$
exists.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How would this proof treat a function such as $f(x)=1/x^3,$ $f(0)=0$?
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:32










  • $begingroup$
    Good point. I've edited my question to include a link to a definition of improper integral, one of its requirements is that the function should be integrable on every subinterval of the region that you define the improper integral over, so in our case for all $[a,b]subseteq (-infty,infty)$. It seems to me that an assumption of this kind is usually incorporated into the definition of the improper Riemann integral. Would you disagree?
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:19










  • $begingroup$
    You want $-k$ instead of $-n$ above. Nice solution, +1.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:31










  • $begingroup$
    @zhw of course, thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:32












  • $begingroup$
    I think you have the right approach here. The point is that it comes down to how the integrals are defined in the first place, which the question does not completely specify. Your way seems fairly standard, and if they do it the same, they'll be OK.
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 23:23











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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f3045096%2fmy-math-prof-does-not-have-a-proof-for-this-existence-of-improper-integrals-for%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4












$begingroup$

Let $b_k, c_k geq 0$ be sequences such that $lim_{ktoinfty} b_k = lim_{ktoinfty} c_k = infty$ and suppose that $b_k < c_k$ for all $k in mathbb{N}$. By assumption,



$$lim_{ktoinfty} int_{b_k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx = lim_{ktoinfty}left( int_{-k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx - int_{-k}^{b_k} f(x)~mathrm dx right) = alpha - alpha = 0.$$



By the Cauchy criterion (cf here), this shows that $$lim_{ytoinfty} int_{0}^{y} f(x)~mathrm d x $$
exists.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How would this proof treat a function such as $f(x)=1/x^3,$ $f(0)=0$?
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:32










  • $begingroup$
    Good point. I've edited my question to include a link to a definition of improper integral, one of its requirements is that the function should be integrable on every subinterval of the region that you define the improper integral over, so in our case for all $[a,b]subseteq (-infty,infty)$. It seems to me that an assumption of this kind is usually incorporated into the definition of the improper Riemann integral. Would you disagree?
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:19










  • $begingroup$
    You want $-k$ instead of $-n$ above. Nice solution, +1.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:31










  • $begingroup$
    @zhw of course, thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:32












  • $begingroup$
    I think you have the right approach here. The point is that it comes down to how the integrals are defined in the first place, which the question does not completely specify. Your way seems fairly standard, and if they do it the same, they'll be OK.
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 23:23
















4












$begingroup$

Let $b_k, c_k geq 0$ be sequences such that $lim_{ktoinfty} b_k = lim_{ktoinfty} c_k = infty$ and suppose that $b_k < c_k$ for all $k in mathbb{N}$. By assumption,



$$lim_{ktoinfty} int_{b_k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx = lim_{ktoinfty}left( int_{-k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx - int_{-k}^{b_k} f(x)~mathrm dx right) = alpha - alpha = 0.$$



By the Cauchy criterion (cf here), this shows that $$lim_{ytoinfty} int_{0}^{y} f(x)~mathrm d x $$
exists.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How would this proof treat a function such as $f(x)=1/x^3,$ $f(0)=0$?
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:32










  • $begingroup$
    Good point. I've edited my question to include a link to a definition of improper integral, one of its requirements is that the function should be integrable on every subinterval of the region that you define the improper integral over, so in our case for all $[a,b]subseteq (-infty,infty)$. It seems to me that an assumption of this kind is usually incorporated into the definition of the improper Riemann integral. Would you disagree?
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:19










  • $begingroup$
    You want $-k$ instead of $-n$ above. Nice solution, +1.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:31










  • $begingroup$
    @zhw of course, thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:32












  • $begingroup$
    I think you have the right approach here. The point is that it comes down to how the integrals are defined in the first place, which the question does not completely specify. Your way seems fairly standard, and if they do it the same, they'll be OK.
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 23:23














4












4








4





$begingroup$

Let $b_k, c_k geq 0$ be sequences such that $lim_{ktoinfty} b_k = lim_{ktoinfty} c_k = infty$ and suppose that $b_k < c_k$ for all $k in mathbb{N}$. By assumption,



$$lim_{ktoinfty} int_{b_k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx = lim_{ktoinfty}left( int_{-k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx - int_{-k}^{b_k} f(x)~mathrm dx right) = alpha - alpha = 0.$$



By the Cauchy criterion (cf here), this shows that $$lim_{ytoinfty} int_{0}^{y} f(x)~mathrm d x $$
exists.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Let $b_k, c_k geq 0$ be sequences such that $lim_{ktoinfty} b_k = lim_{ktoinfty} c_k = infty$ and suppose that $b_k < c_k$ for all $k in mathbb{N}$. By assumption,



$$lim_{ktoinfty} int_{b_k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx = lim_{ktoinfty}left( int_{-k}^{c_k} f(x)~mathrm dx - int_{-k}^{b_k} f(x)~mathrm dx right) = alpha - alpha = 0.$$



By the Cauchy criterion (cf here), this shows that $$lim_{ytoinfty} int_{0}^{y} f(x)~mathrm d x $$
exists.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 18 '18 at 19:32

























answered Dec 18 '18 at 13:27









user159517user159517

4,575931




4,575931








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How would this proof treat a function such as $f(x)=1/x^3,$ $f(0)=0$?
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:32










  • $begingroup$
    Good point. I've edited my question to include a link to a definition of improper integral, one of its requirements is that the function should be integrable on every subinterval of the region that you define the improper integral over, so in our case for all $[a,b]subseteq (-infty,infty)$. It seems to me that an assumption of this kind is usually incorporated into the definition of the improper Riemann integral. Would you disagree?
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:19










  • $begingroup$
    You want $-k$ instead of $-n$ above. Nice solution, +1.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:31










  • $begingroup$
    @zhw of course, thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:32












  • $begingroup$
    I think you have the right approach here. The point is that it comes down to how the integrals are defined in the first place, which the question does not completely specify. Your way seems fairly standard, and if they do it the same, they'll be OK.
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 23:23














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How would this proof treat a function such as $f(x)=1/x^3,$ $f(0)=0$?
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:32










  • $begingroup$
    Good point. I've edited my question to include a link to a definition of improper integral, one of its requirements is that the function should be integrable on every subinterval of the region that you define the improper integral over, so in our case for all $[a,b]subseteq (-infty,infty)$. It seems to me that an assumption of this kind is usually incorporated into the definition of the improper Riemann integral. Would you disagree?
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:19










  • $begingroup$
    You want $-k$ instead of $-n$ above. Nice solution, +1.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:31










  • $begingroup$
    @zhw of course, thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user159517
    Dec 18 '18 at 19:32












  • $begingroup$
    I think you have the right approach here. The point is that it comes down to how the integrals are defined in the first place, which the question does not completely specify. Your way seems fairly standard, and if they do it the same, they'll be OK.
    $endgroup$
    – David K
    Dec 18 '18 at 23:23








1




1




$begingroup$
How would this proof treat a function such as $f(x)=1/x^3,$ $f(0)=0$?
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 18 '18 at 13:32




$begingroup$
How would this proof treat a function such as $f(x)=1/x^3,$ $f(0)=0$?
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 18 '18 at 13:32












$begingroup$
Good point. I've edited my question to include a link to a definition of improper integral, one of its requirements is that the function should be integrable on every subinterval of the region that you define the improper integral over, so in our case for all $[a,b]subseteq (-infty,infty)$. It seems to me that an assumption of this kind is usually incorporated into the definition of the improper Riemann integral. Would you disagree?
$endgroup$
– user159517
Dec 18 '18 at 19:19




$begingroup$
Good point. I've edited my question to include a link to a definition of improper integral, one of its requirements is that the function should be integrable on every subinterval of the region that you define the improper integral over, so in our case for all $[a,b]subseteq (-infty,infty)$. It seems to me that an assumption of this kind is usually incorporated into the definition of the improper Riemann integral. Would you disagree?
$endgroup$
– user159517
Dec 18 '18 at 19:19












$begingroup$
You want $-k$ instead of $-n$ above. Nice solution, +1.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Dec 18 '18 at 19:31




$begingroup$
You want $-k$ instead of $-n$ above. Nice solution, +1.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Dec 18 '18 at 19:31












$begingroup$
@zhw of course, thanks.
$endgroup$
– user159517
Dec 18 '18 at 19:32






$begingroup$
@zhw of course, thanks.
$endgroup$
– user159517
Dec 18 '18 at 19:32














$begingroup$
I think you have the right approach here. The point is that it comes down to how the integrals are defined in the first place, which the question does not completely specify. Your way seems fairly standard, and if they do it the same, they'll be OK.
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 18 '18 at 23:23




$begingroup$
I think you have the right approach here. The point is that it comes down to how the integrals are defined in the first place, which the question does not completely specify. Your way seems fairly standard, and if they do it the same, they'll be OK.
$endgroup$
– David K
Dec 18 '18 at 23:23


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3045096%2fmy-math-prof-does-not-have-a-proof-for-this-existence-of-improper-integrals-for%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

Plaza Victoria

Image
Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l
Read more

Puebla de Zaragoza

Image
Para otros usos de este término, véase Puebla (desambiguación). Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localidad De arriba a abajo de izquierda a derecha: Estrella de Puebla, Volcán Popocatépetl, Catedral de Puebla, Monumento a Ignacio Zaragoza, Estadio Cuauhtémoc, Angelópolis y Vista panorámica de la ciudad. Escudo Otros nombres: El relicario de América/ La ciudad de los Ángeles/ La Angelópolis Lema: Muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en México Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en Puebla Mapa interactivo Coordenadas 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Coordenadas: 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Idioma oficial Español Entidad Localidad  • País   México  • Estado Puebla  • Municipio Puebla Presidente municipal Claudia Rivera Vivanc
Read more

Musa

Image
Para el género de plantas, véase Musa (planta). Apolo y la Nueve Musas En la mitología griega, las musas (en griego antiguo μοῦσαι « mousai» ) son, según los escritores más antiguos, las divinidades inspiradoras de las Artes: cada una de ellas está relacionada con ramas artísticas y del conocimiento. Son hijas de Zeus y de Mnemósine, compañeras del séquito de Apolo, dios olímpico de la música y patrón de las bellas artes, quien tuvo romances con cada una de ellas, dejando descendientes. Bajaban a la tierra a susurrar ideas e inspirar a aquellos mortales que las invocaran. En la época más arcaica eran las ninfas inspiradoras de las fuentes, en las cuales eran adoradas. Finalmente, alrededor de los siglos VIII-VII a. C. [ 1 ] ​ prevaleció en todo el territorio de la Hélade la adoración de las nueve Musas, que son Calíope, Clío, Erato, Euterpe, Melpómene, Polimnia, Talía, Terpsícore y Urania. El culto a las musas era originalmente de Tracia y Beocia, y fueron de vital impo
Read more