11

Improper Riemann integrals are usually defined via limits.

Standard Definition: Let $f:[0, \infty) \to \mathbb{R}$. We say $f$ is improper Riemann integrable on $[0, \infty)$ if it is proper Riemann integrable on compact intervals and the following limit exists

$$ \lim_{t \to \infty} \int_{0}^{t} f(x) \ dx$$

Instead of this, can we define the improper integral with "partitions" of $[0, \infty)$ as we do with the normal Riemann integral?

Preliminaries: A partition of $[0, \infty)$ is a strictly increasing sequence $p:\mathbb{N}_{\geq 1} \to [0, \infty)$ with $p(1) = 0$ and $$\lim_{n \to \infty} p(n) = +\infty$$

A tagging of a given partition $p$ is any sequence $t:\mathbb{N}_{\geq 1} \to [0, \infty)$ such that $t(n) \in [p(n), p(n+1)]$ for all $n \geq 1$.

A refinement of a partition $p$ is a partition $p'$ which contains $p$ as a subsequence.

The mesh of a partition $p$ is the quantity $\sup\{p(n+1) - p(n): n \in \mathbb{N}_{\geq 1}\}$. It is denoted as $||p||$. $||p|| = +\infty$ is possible.

There's two ways we can go about our definition.

Definition 1: Let $f:[0, \infty) \to \mathbb{R}$. We say $f$ is improper Riemann integrable on $[0, \infty)$ if there is a real number $L$ such that for all $\epsilon>0$ there is a partition $p_{\epsilon}$ such that for every refinement $p_{\epsilon}'$ of $p_{\epsilon}$ and any tagging $t$ of $p_{\epsilon}'$ the sum $$S(f, p_{\epsilon}', t) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} [p_{\epsilon}'(n+1) - p_{\epsilon}'(n)]f(t(n))$$ converges and

$$|L - S(f, p_{\epsilon}', t)| < \epsilon$$

Definition 2: Let $f:[0, \infty) \to \mathbb{R}$. We say $f$ is improper Riemann integrable on $[0, \infty)$ if there is a real number $L$ such that for all $\epsilon>0$ there is a $\delta>0$ such that for every partition $p_{\delta}$ with $||p_{\delta}||<\delta$ and any tagging $t$ of $p_{\delta}$, the sum $$S(f, p_{\delta}, t) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} [p_{\delta}(n+1) - p_{\delta}(n)]f(t(n))$$ converges and

$$|L - S(f, p_{\delta}, t)| < \epsilon$$

Problem: Are all of these definitions equivalent?

Partial answers are fine.

  • 1
    I just realized that the second definition is incorrect. Suppose $f(x) = 0$ on $[0, \infty)$ except at the naturals where $f(n) = n$. For any $\delta>0$, choose the partition $p(n) = \frac{\delta}{2}(n-1)$. Choose a tag such that in each subinterval containing an integer, the integer is tagged. Summing on those subintervals shows $S(f, p_{\delta}, t) = \sum \frac{1}{2}\delta n = + \infty$. The normal improper integral is $0$, so the definition fails. – MathematicsStudent1122 Aug 31 '17 at 05:58
  • Jury's still out on the first definition. – MathematicsStudent1122 Aug 31 '17 at 05:58
  • I must commend your efforts for an alternative definition. +1 – Paramanand Singh Aug 31 '17 at 09:38
  • You might be interested in the Henstock–Kutzweil integral. It uses the idea of guage (which is essentially the same as allowing non-homogeneous mesh size $\delta$), it turns out that the resulting integration theory encompasses both the improper Riemann integral and Lebesgue integral. – Sangchul Lee Jul 09 '21 at 18:45

2 Answers2

8

Neither definition is valid.

Even on a finite interval, a convergent improper integral is not guaranteed to be computable as the limit (in any sense) of Riemann sums. Only if restrictions like monotonicity and carefully selected tags are imposed is there any hope of this working. A good example is the convergent improper integral

$$\int_0^1 \frac{1}{x} \sin \frac{1}{x} \, dx = \int_1^\infty \frac{\sin x }{x} \, dx \approx 0.627143$$

discussed here and here.

This is essentially due to a double limiting process where limits are not interchangeable.

For a counterexample pertaining to an infinite interval and Definition 1, consider a sequence of dyadic partitions

$$P_{n,m} = (0,1/2^n, 2/2^n, \ldots,1, \ldots, m-1, m-1 + 1/2^n, \ldots,m)$$

With $m$ fixed, successive partitions are refinements as $n$ is increased.

Take a function $f$ where $f(k) = 1$ at any integer $k$ and $f(x) = 0$ otherwise. It is true that

$$0 = \int_0^\infty f(x) \, dx = \lim_{m \to \infty}\int_0^mf(x) \, dx =\lim_{m \to \infty} \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{2^n} \sum_{k=1}^{m2^n} f(k/2^n) = \lim_{m \to \infty} \lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{m}{2^n},$$

but

$$\lim_{n \to \infty} \lim_{m \to \infty} \frac{1}{2^n} \sum_{k=1}^{m2^n} f(k/2^n) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{2^n}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f(k/2^n) = +\infty$$

RRL
  • 92,835
  • 7
  • 70
  • 142
  • Thanks. Is continuity sufficient for either definitions to work? – MathematicsStudent1122 Aug 31 '17 at 08:06
  • It doesn't help with that first example on the finite interval, and we can probably construct a counterexample on the infinite interval as well. I think the only thing that helps is monotonicity of the integrand. – RRL Aug 31 '17 at 08:18
  • Good that you came up with the first counterexample btw. – RRL Aug 31 '17 at 08:28
0

I think certain smoothness conditions on $f$ could help us.

For each $N$, break the interval $[0,N]$ into $N^2$ sub-intervals of length $1/N$. I want the difference $$\int_{0}^{\infty}f(x)dx-\sum_{m=1}^{N^2}\frac{1}{N}f(x_m)$$ to converge to $0$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$.

(Instead of taking a double limit in $2$ variables I'm taking a single limit in $N$.)

This sum can be written as $$\int_{0}^{N}f(x)dx-\sum_{m=1}^{N^2}\frac{1}{N}f(x_m)+\int_{x>N}f(x)dx$$

Now for integrable functions, the last term would converge to $0$. So we are interested only in $$\int_{0}^{N}f(x)dx-\sum_{m=1}^{N^2}\frac{1}{N}f(x_m)$$

which can be broken up as sums of $$\int_{k/N}^{(k+1)/N}f(x)dx-\frac{1}{N}f(x_m)$$

$$=\int_{k/N}^{(k+1)/N}[f(x)-f(x_m)]dx$$ $$=\int_{k/N}^{(k+1)/N}f'(y_m)[x-x_m]dx$$ $$\leq\int_{k/N}^{(k+1)/N}|f'(y_m)|\frac{1}{N}dx$$

Suppose $f'$ satisfies the bound $$|f'(x)|\leq\frac{M}{1+x^2}$$ Then if we choose the tags $x_m$ to be the largest points in our intervals we get $$x<y_m<x_m$$ In that case the above integral is bounded by $$\frac{1}{N}\int_{k/N}^{(k+1)/N}\frac{M}{1+x^2}dx$$ Then our original sum is bounded by $$\frac{1}{N}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{M}{1+x^2}dx=\frac{M\pi}{2N}\rightarrow 0$$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$.