28

Consider one of the standard methods used for defining the Riemann integrals:

Suppose $\sigma$ denotes any subdivision $a=x_0<x_1<x_2\cdots<x_{n-1}<x_n=b$, and let $x_{i-1}\leq \xi_i\leq x_i$. Then if $$|\sigma|:=\max\{x_i-x_{i-1}|i=1,\cdots,n\},$$ which we shall call the norm of the subdivision, we define: $$\int_a^bf(x)dx:=\lim_{|\sigma|\to 0}\sum_{i=1}^nf(\xi_i)(x_i-x_{i-1}).$$

When one talks about the limit of a function $\lim_{x\to x_0}f(x)$, one has exactly one value $f(x)$ for every $x$. However, for every $|\sigma|$, the value of the Riemann sum $\sum_{i=1}^nf(\xi_i)(x_i-x_{i-1})$ is not necessarily unique. Using the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ language, one may restate the definition as follows:

Suppose $f:[a,b]\to{\mathbb R}$, $J\in{\mathbb R}$. If for all $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\delta>0$ such that for any subdivision $\sigma$ and $\{\xi_i\}$ on $\sigma$ (i.e. $x_{i-1}\leq \xi_i\leq x_i$), $|\sigma|<\delta$ implies $$|\sum_{i=1}^nf(\xi_i)\Delta x_i-J|<\epsilon,$$ we call $J$ is the Riemann integral of $f$ on $[a,b]$ and denote $$J=\int_a^bf(x)dx.$$

Here are my questions:

  • How should I understand this kind of limit?
  • It seems that this is not the "limit of a function" I learned in elementary real analysis. Where does it appear in mathematics besides the definition of Riemann integrals?
  • I too have wondered this kind of question, but having thought more feel like non-uniqueness had already reared its head, if less obviously so, even with limits at real points of real-valued functions -- because $\lim_{x \to x_0} f(x)$ should amount to $\lim_{\left|x-x_0\right| \to 0} f(x)$, and the value of $|x-x_0|$ (just like with the norm of partitions) rarely determines $f(x)$ either, even if most might say it comes close since there are but two points and resulting values to consider. So it would seem that we were dealing with this problem more or less all along. The saga continues ... – Vandermonde Apr 17 '23 at 02:37

5 Answers5

39

It is the limit of a net. Nets are a generalization of sequences which make all the familiar statements about sequences true for spaces that are not first-countable (for example a point lies in the closure of a subspace if and only if there is a net converging to it, and so forth), so any time you want to prove something about general spaces and you would like to use sequences but can't, you can use nets instead (although there are some subtleties here; one cannot just replace "sequence" with "net" in a proof).

Qiaochu Yuan
  • 419,620
  • +1. A nice text Jack might be interested in is Beardon's "LIMITS", which presents the subject of nets from a fairly elementary point of view. – Mark Jul 28 '11 at 07:42
  • @Mark: Do you have a reference for the Beardon's limits you mentioned? –  Aug 14 '11 at 04:17
  • 2
    http://www.amazon.com/LIMITS-Approach-Analysis-Undergraduate-Mathematics/dp/0387982744 – Mark Aug 14 '11 at 06:16
  • There's also the old classic paper by Robert Bartle from which I learned about generalized convergence. However,it's been brought to my attention by the esteemed Pete Clark that there are several subtle errors in the Bartle paper that he's been good enough to correct at his website in some wonderful notes on convergence-I strongly suggest you download both after Google-ing them! – Mathemagician1234 Sep 24 '11 at 15:41
  • @Qiaochu Yuan so can we say in this case directed set is a set of partition,where relation defined using norm of partition? – MEET PATEL Aug 20 '22 at 13:01
11

One way of thinking about it is that you have a function defined on the set of partitions of $[a,b]$ into the real numbers called the Riemann sum. You put an order on partitions by defining the notion of mesh ($|\sigma|$ in your notation) and defining an order on the set of partitions by $\sigma\succeq\tau$, if and only if $|\sigma| \leq |\tau|$ and say that $\sigma$ is finer than $\tau$. So now you can make a definition similar to the limit of sequences: $\lim_{|\sigma|\rightarrow 0} R(\sigma)=J$ if and only if for all $\epsilon>0$ there exists a partition $\Lambda$ such that for all partitions $\sigma$ such that $\sigma\succeq\Lambda$ one has $|R(\sigma)-J|<\epsilon$.

The more general context for this is that we are making the set of partitions into a directed set, and so Riemann sum becomes a net from the set of partitions into $\mathbb{R}$.

  • how do you justify the fact that limit should not depend on choice of point in given partition,bcz in this case function u mentioned above will be multivalued ,as for given partition we will have infinite sum,(using different points).@minimalrho – MEET PATEL Aug 20 '22 at 13:12
  • Did you comment on an answer more than 10 years old? In any event, this is addressed by the quantifiers here. There exists a partition such that for all finer partitions. Though in retrospect for this version, I should have there exists a delta > 0 such that all partitions whose mesh is smaller than delta. In any case, it must be true for all partitions so all choices of points must be appropriate for this. The value of J must be determined first and the inequality must hold for all sufficiently fine partitions. – minimalrho Sep 28 '22 at 17:26
9

It can be stated in terms of the ordinary definition of limit. Let $A(\sigma)$ and $B(\sigma)$ respecively be the supremum and infimum of $\sum_i f(\xi_i) (x_i - x_{i-1})$ over all subdivisions of "norm" $\sigma$ and all choices of the $\xi_i$. Then if $\lim_{\sigma \to 0} A(\sigma) = \lim_{\sigma \to 0} B(\sigma)$, i.e. both limits exist and are equal, the common value is the Riemann integral.

Robert Israel
  • 448,999
  • 5
    Yes, but don't you get another integral then? That is the Darboux integral. On $\mathbf R$ it will work and be the same but on infinite dimensional spaces this won't work. – JT_NL Jul 29 '11 at 21:12
  • Well,that's why we have the Lebesgue integral,Jonas. : ) – Mathemagician1234 Sep 24 '11 at 16:18
4

Qiaochu Yuan and minimalrho explained very well how to use nets. Filters (or filter bases) also can be used to formalize the concept of Riemann integral. Nets and filters are important tools in topology and functional analysis.

Just for completeness' sake, I would like to mention here another generalization of limit: G tends to b as F tends to a.

Let $S$ be a set, $X,Y$ be topological spaces, $F\colon S\to X$, $G\colon S\to Y$, $a\in X$, $b\in Y$. We say that $G\to b$ as $F\to a$ if for every neighborhood $V$ of $b$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $a$ such that for every $s\in S$ the condition $F(s)\in U$ implies that $G(s)\in V$.

This concept of limit is not so powerful as nets and filters (and it can be reduced to nets or filters), but it is very close to the definition of Riemann integral. In the definition of Riemann integral, $S$ is the set of tagged partitions, $F$ is the norm of the partition and $G$ is the integral sum.

  • Instead of $F(s)\in U$, I think that you want $F(s)\in U\smallsetminus{a}$ (or equivalently say that $U$ is a deleted neighbourhood of $a$) to capture the usual anglophone conception of a limit, where $G$ might tend to $b$ as $F\to a$ even if $G\ne b$ can happen when $F=a$. (But that has no effect on the definition of a Riemann integral, since the norm of a partition cannot be $0$.) – Toby Bartels Aug 22 '19 at 18:30
  • 1
    Despite your modesty, this actually is just as powerful as nets in general! If $\nu$ is a net in the topological space $Y$, with the directed set $A$ as its domain, then let $S$ be $A$, and let $X$ be $A\uplus{\infty}$ with the usual topology (a subset $U$ of $X$ is open iff, if $\infty\in U$, then $U$ also contains some tail set of $A$). Then $L$ is the limit of $\nu$ iff $\nu_n\to L$ as $n\to \infty$, which is how people often like to talk about nets anyway. (Since $x$ itself is never $\infty$, this is the same regardless of whether or not you accept my modification of your definition.) – Toby Bartels Aug 22 '19 at 18:47
  • (Typo in previous comment, too late to edit: In the last sentence, read "$n$ itself is never $\infty$" instead of "$x$ itself is never $\infty$".) – Toby Bartels Aug 22 '19 at 18:57
  • Thank you for the explanation! So, I underestimated this concept. By the way, I have heard this concept from my scientific advisor Igor Simonenko. About the deleted or non-deleted limits, this is a matter of taste. – Egor Maximenko Aug 24 '19 at 03:35
0

Besides taking the limit of a function, you can take the limit of any relation, thought of as a multi-valued function. Recall that $ \lim _ { x \to x _ 0 } y = L $, where $ y = f ( x ) $ for some function $ f $, means that there is a unique $ L $ such that, for each $ \epsilon > 0 $, for some $ \delta > 0 $, for each $ x $ in the domain of $ f $, if $ 0 < \lvert x - x _ 0 \rvert < \delta $ and $ y = f ( x ) $, then $ | y - L | < \epsilon $. Compared to what you'll usually see in Calculus textbooks, I wrote $ y $ instead of $ f ( x ) $, so that I had to throw in the statement that $ y = f ( x ) $, but this is obviously equivalent. To avoid dummy variables, we can also say that $ L $ is the limit of $ f $ approaching $ x _ 0 $.

Similarly, $ \lim _ { x \to x _ 0 } y = L $, where now $ R ( x , y ) $ for some relation $ R $, means that there is a unique real number $ L $ such that, for each $ \epsilon > 0 $, for some $ \delta > 0 $, for each $ x $ in the domain of $ R $, if $ 0 < \lvert x - x _ 0 \rvert < \delta $ and $ R ( x , y ) $, then $ | y - L | < \epsilon $. Compared to the previous statement, I replaced $ y = f ( x ) $ with $ R ( x , y ) $, and otherwise this is identical. To avoid dummy variables again, we now say that $ L $ is the limit of $ R $ approaching $ x _ 0 $. Of course, if $ R $ is a functional (single-valued) relation, then this agrees with the previous paragraph.

For a simple example, let $ R ( x , y ) $ mean that $ \lvert x \rvert = \lvert y \rvert $, or $ y = \pm x $ to look like a multi-valued function. Note that every real number is in the domain of $ R $. Then $ \lim _ { x \to 0 } ( \pm x ) = 0 $, because for each $ \epsilon > 0 $, for some $ \delta > 0 $ (such as $ \delta = \epsilon $ in this case), for each real number $ x $, if $ 0 < \lvert x - 0 \rvert < \delta $ and $ y = \pm x $, then $ \lvert y - 0 \rvert < \epsilon $.

For the Riemann integral, $ R ( x , y ) $ means that $ y $ is the value of a Riemann sum whose partition has norm $ x $; it might be good to use different variables names here, so I'll use $ n $ (for norm) and $ S $ (for sum) instead. The domain of this relation (the set of possible norms) is the set of positive numbers. So, to say that $ L $ is the limit of $ R $ approaching $ 0 $ is to say that, for each $ \epsilon > 0 $, for some $ \delta > 0 $, for each positive number $ N $, if $ 0 < \lvert N - 0 \rvert < \delta $ and $ I $ is the value of a Riemann sum whose partition has norm $ N $, then $ | I - L | < \epsilon $. Since $ N $ is positive, we can simplify $ 0 < \lvert N - 0 \rvert < \delta $ to $ N < \delta $, and now we have the usual definition of the Riemann integral.

Toby Bartels
  • 4,679
  • To describe the limit of a function $f$ approaching $x_0$ as the limit of a net $\nu$, the domain of $\nu$ is $\operatorname{dom}f\smallsetminus{x_0}$, with $x_1\preceq x_2$ iff $\lvert x_2-x_0\rvert\leq\lvert x_1-x_0\rvert$, and $\nu(x)=f(x)$. Or you could take the domain of $\nu$ to be ${(x,y)\in\operatorname{dom}f\times\operatorname{ran}f;|;x\ne x_0,;y=f(x)}$, with $(x_1,y_1)\preceq(x_2,y_2)$ iff $\lvert x_2-x_0\rvert\leq\lvert x_1-x_0\rvert$, and $\nu(x,y)=y$. That's overly complicated for a function, but equivalent, and it works for a relation $R$, replacing $y=f(x)$ with $R(x,y)$. – Toby Bartels Aug 22 '19 at 18:08
  • To relate to Egor's concept that $G$ tends to $b$ as $F$ tends to $a$, where $F$ and $G$ are functions with a common domain $S$: For the limit of a function $f$ approaching $x_0$, you would take $S$ to be $\operatorname{dom}f\smallsetminus{x_0}$, with $F(x)=x$ and $G(x)=f(x)$. So again change $S$ to the more complicated, but equivalent, ${(x,y)\in\operatorname{dom}f\times\operatorname{ran}f;|;x\ne x_0,;y=f(x)}$, with $F(x,y)=x$ and $G(x,y)=y$; then change $y=f(x)$ to $R(x,y)$ if you want the limit of a relation $R$. – Toby Bartels Aug 22 '19 at 18:22
  • Actually, if Egor accepts my correction to his definition, then his concept is essentially equivalent to mine, with his $S$ being the graph of my $R$. But Egor gives you more flexibility in how you set it up; that's why he could use a more natural $S$ (the set of tagged partitions itself rather than the set of ordered pairs consisting of the norm and sum); my $R$ is really the image of his $S$ in $X\times Y$. (He also stated things in more generality, with $X$ and $Y$ being arbitrary topological spaces, whereas I used the real line for each.) – Toby Bartels Aug 22 '19 at 18:35