Definition of double integral in $\epsilon - \delta$ terms.

514 Views Asked by At

When we define double integral for function $f$, we usually start with it's definition on a rectangle $R=[a,b]\times[c,d]$ which can be split into bunch of smaller rectangles $[a,b]=[x_0,x_1]\cup[x_1,x_2]\cup...\cup[x_{n-1},x_n]$ and $[c,d]=[y_0,y_1]\cup[y_1,y_2]\cup...\cup[y_{n-1},y_n]$ then forming a sum

where $\Delta x_i=x_i-x_{i-1}$ and $\Delta y_j=y_j-y_{j-1}$ and $(\epsilon_i, \gamma_j)$ is point inside rectangle $R_{ij}$

Now, if we choose the rectangle with greatest diameter (let that diameter be $d_{ij}$ ) and if we what to find limit of the given sum when $d_{ij} \rightarrow 0 $, then if that sum has a finite limit regardless of how we split the intervals $[a,b]$ and $[c,d]$ and which points inside $R_{ij}$ rectangles we choose, then, that limit of the sum is called DOUBLE INTEGRAL of $f$ on $R$.

However, i am supposed to understand the definition of double integral in $\epsilon - \delta$ terms.

Defining double integral this way makes sense since this is obviously a limit and we know that limits can be definied in $\epsilon - \delta$ terms.

There it goes:

Number $I$ is called double integral of function $f$ on rectangle $R$ if for every $\epsilon > 0$ there is $\delta >0$ such that if we split intervals $[a,b]$ and $[c,d]$ and we get $d_{ij}<\delta$, then, regardless of points chosen following inequality is true:

$$| \sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{j=1}^n f(\epsilon_i, \gamma_j)\Delta x_i \Delta y_j - I | < \epsilon$$

Now, this should't be difficult to understand, but I struggle with it very much, since i cannot understand why is it required that we have to split given intervals in such way that $d_{ij}<\delta$, why this is not working if we split the intervals in a such way that $d_{ij}>\delta$ (AGAIN: $d_{ij}$ is a diameter of largest rectangle we got when we split the two intervals given). Any help is appreciated!

1

There are 1 best solutions below

1
On

why this is not working if we split the intervals in a such way that $d > \delta$

It's not clear what you mean by “not working” here. Do you mean, why is it necessary that $d<\delta$? Otherwise, the condition is not equivalent to the definition.

I mean, it's possible that for some $\epsilon$, there exists a partition with $d > \delta$ and the difference between the Riemann sum and $I$ is smaller than $\epsilon$. But if you are looking for functions which satisfy that condition for all partitions with $d>\delta$, you're going to eliminate a lot of integrable functions.

Compare it to the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition of limit. We say $\lim_{x\to a}f(x) = L$ if for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that $0 < | x- a | < \delta \implies |f(x) - L| < \epsilon$. Why do we rule out points $x$ with $|x - a| > \delta$? Without it, the statement that $\lim_{x\to a} x = a$ wouldn't be true.