If f is even integrable function on [0,a] prove that f is integrable on [-a,a] and that $int_{-a}^{0} f(x) dx...












0












$begingroup$


let f be an even function and suppose that f is integrable on [0,a].prove that f is integrable on [-a,a] and that $int_{-a}^{0} f(x) dx = int_{0}^{a} f(x) dx $



The answer is given below:



enter image description here



But I have a difficulty understanding the third line in the solution, does it contain a typo i.e. t must be -t in the second equality??






real-analysis calculus integration analysis







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What is confusing about the third line?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Burr
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:28
















0












$begingroup$


let f be an even function and suppose that f is integrable on [0,a].prove that f is integrable on [-a,a] and that $int_{-a}^{0} f(x) dx = int_{0}^{a} f(x) dx $



The answer is given below:



enter image description here



But I have a difficulty understanding the third line in the solution, does it contain a typo i.e. t must be -t in the second equality??






real-analysis calculus integration analysis







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What is confusing about the third line?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Burr
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:28














0












0








0





$begingroup$


let f be an even function and suppose that f is integrable on [0,a].prove that f is integrable on [-a,a] and that $int_{-a}^{0} f(x) dx = int_{0}^{a} f(x) dx $



The answer is given below:



enter image description here



But I have a difficulty understanding the third line in the solution, does it contain a typo i.e. t must be -t in the second equality??






real-analysis calculus integration analysis







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




let f be an even function and suppose that f is integrable on [0,a].prove that f is integrable on [-a,a] and that $int_{-a}^{0} f(x) dx = int_{0}^{a} f(x) dx $



The answer is given below:



enter image description here



But I have a difficulty understanding the third line in the solution, does it contain a typo i.e. t must be -t in the second equality??






real-analysis calculus integration analysis




real-analysis calculus integration analysis






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 3 '18 at 10:24









hopefullyhopefully

189113




189113












  • $begingroup$
    What is confusing about the third line?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Burr
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:28


















  • $begingroup$
    What is confusing about the third line?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Burr
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:28
















$begingroup$
What is confusing about the third line?
$endgroup$
– Michael Burr
Dec 3 '18 at 10:28




$begingroup$
What is confusing about the third line?
$endgroup$
– Michael Burr
Dec 3 '18 at 10:28










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

No, the second inequality contains a $t$. This is because $f$ is even, therefore, $f(-t)=f(t)$.



This means that the values $f$ takes on the interval $[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ are the same that $f$ takes on the interval $[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$.




A strict proof of the claim would indeed require multiplying the inequalities, in particular,a more rigorous equality would be written like so:



$$begin{align}sup{f(t)| -x_k leq t leq -x_{k-1}} &= sup{f(-t)|-x_kleq t leq -x_{k-1}}\& = sup{f(-t)|x_{k-1}leq -t leq x_k}\&=sup{f(tau)|x_{k-1}leq tauleq x_k}end{align}$$
In line one, I use only the fact that $f$ is odd. In line $2$, I just multiply the inequality by $-1$, and in line $3$, I introduce a new variable $tau=-t$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    but we have to multiply the inequality by -1 in the second part
    $endgroup$
    – hopefully
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully You don't multiply the inequality. You use the fact that for every $tin[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$, there exists some $tauin[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ such that $f(t)=f(tau)$.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Technically, you do multiply the inequality, but you also introduce $-t$ into the argument of $f$. I updated my answer to show exactly what happens.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Well you won't have $f(t)=f(-t)$ any more. To see what exactly the difference will be, I advise you try to do it, and see for yourself!
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully That sounds about right, yes
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:45











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%2f3023882%2fif-f-is-even-integrable-function-on-0-a-prove-that-f-is-integrable-on-a-a-a%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









1












$begingroup$

No, the second inequality contains a $t$. This is because $f$ is even, therefore, $f(-t)=f(t)$.



This means that the values $f$ takes on the interval $[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ are the same that $f$ takes on the interval $[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$.




A strict proof of the claim would indeed require multiplying the inequalities, in particular,a more rigorous equality would be written like so:



$$begin{align}sup{f(t)| -x_k leq t leq -x_{k-1}} &= sup{f(-t)|-x_kleq t leq -x_{k-1}}\& = sup{f(-t)|x_{k-1}leq -t leq x_k}\&=sup{f(tau)|x_{k-1}leq tauleq x_k}end{align}$$
In line one, I use only the fact that $f$ is odd. In line $2$, I just multiply the inequality by $-1$, and in line $3$, I introduce a new variable $tau=-t$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    but we have to multiply the inequality by -1 in the second part
    $endgroup$
    – hopefully
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully You don't multiply the inequality. You use the fact that for every $tin[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$, there exists some $tauin[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ such that $f(t)=f(tau)$.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Technically, you do multiply the inequality, but you also introduce $-t$ into the argument of $f$. I updated my answer to show exactly what happens.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Well you won't have $f(t)=f(-t)$ any more. To see what exactly the difference will be, I advise you try to do it, and see for yourself!
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully That sounds about right, yes
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:45
















1












$begingroup$

No, the second inequality contains a $t$. This is because $f$ is even, therefore, $f(-t)=f(t)$.



This means that the values $f$ takes on the interval $[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ are the same that $f$ takes on the interval $[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$.




A strict proof of the claim would indeed require multiplying the inequalities, in particular,a more rigorous equality would be written like so:



$$begin{align}sup{f(t)| -x_k leq t leq -x_{k-1}} &= sup{f(-t)|-x_kleq t leq -x_{k-1}}\& = sup{f(-t)|x_{k-1}leq -t leq x_k}\&=sup{f(tau)|x_{k-1}leq tauleq x_k}end{align}$$
In line one, I use only the fact that $f$ is odd. In line $2$, I just multiply the inequality by $-1$, and in line $3$, I introduce a new variable $tau=-t$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    but we have to multiply the inequality by -1 in the second part
    $endgroup$
    – hopefully
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully You don't multiply the inequality. You use the fact that for every $tin[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$, there exists some $tauin[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ such that $f(t)=f(tau)$.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Technically, you do multiply the inequality, but you also introduce $-t$ into the argument of $f$. I updated my answer to show exactly what happens.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Well you won't have $f(t)=f(-t)$ any more. To see what exactly the difference will be, I advise you try to do it, and see for yourself!
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully That sounds about right, yes
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:45














1












1








1





$begingroup$

No, the second inequality contains a $t$. This is because $f$ is even, therefore, $f(-t)=f(t)$.



This means that the values $f$ takes on the interval $[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ are the same that $f$ takes on the interval $[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$.




A strict proof of the claim would indeed require multiplying the inequalities, in particular,a more rigorous equality would be written like so:



$$begin{align}sup{f(t)| -x_k leq t leq -x_{k-1}} &= sup{f(-t)|-x_kleq t leq -x_{k-1}}\& = sup{f(-t)|x_{k-1}leq -t leq x_k}\&=sup{f(tau)|x_{k-1}leq tauleq x_k}end{align}$$
In line one, I use only the fact that $f$ is odd. In line $2$, I just multiply the inequality by $-1$, and in line $3$, I introduce a new variable $tau=-t$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



No, the second inequality contains a $t$. This is because $f$ is even, therefore, $f(-t)=f(t)$.



This means that the values $f$ takes on the interval $[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ are the same that $f$ takes on the interval $[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$.




A strict proof of the claim would indeed require multiplying the inequalities, in particular,a more rigorous equality would be written like so:



$$begin{align}sup{f(t)| -x_k leq t leq -x_{k-1}} &= sup{f(-t)|-x_kleq t leq -x_{k-1}}\& = sup{f(-t)|x_{k-1}leq -t leq x_k}\&=sup{f(tau)|x_{k-1}leq tauleq x_k}end{align}$$
In line one, I use only the fact that $f$ is odd. In line $2$, I just multiply the inequality by $-1$, and in line $3$, I introduce a new variable $tau=-t$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 3 '18 at 10:32

























answered Dec 3 '18 at 10:29









5xum5xum

90.1k393161




90.1k393161












  • $begingroup$
    but we have to multiply the inequality by -1 in the second part
    $endgroup$
    – hopefully
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully You don't multiply the inequality. You use the fact that for every $tin[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$, there exists some $tauin[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ such that $f(t)=f(tau)$.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Technically, you do multiply the inequality, but you also introduce $-t$ into the argument of $f$. I updated my answer to show exactly what happens.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Well you won't have $f(t)=f(-t)$ any more. To see what exactly the difference will be, I advise you try to do it, and see for yourself!
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully That sounds about right, yes
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:45


















  • $begingroup$
    but we have to multiply the inequality by -1 in the second part
    $endgroup$
    – hopefully
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully You don't multiply the inequality. You use the fact that for every $tin[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$, there exists some $tauin[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ such that $f(t)=f(tau)$.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Technically, you do multiply the inequality, but you also introduce $-t$ into the argument of $f$. I updated my answer to show exactly what happens.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 10:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully Well you won't have $f(t)=f(-t)$ any more. To see what exactly the difference will be, I advise you try to do it, and see for yourself!
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hopefully That sounds about right, yes
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 3 '18 at 11:45
















$begingroup$
but we have to multiply the inequality by -1 in the second part
$endgroup$
– hopefully
Dec 3 '18 at 10:30




$begingroup$
but we have to multiply the inequality by -1 in the second part
$endgroup$
– hopefully
Dec 3 '18 at 10:30




1




1




$begingroup$
@hopefully You don't multiply the inequality. You use the fact that for every $tin[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$, there exists some $tauin[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ such that $f(t)=f(tau)$.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 10:31




$begingroup$
@hopefully You don't multiply the inequality. You use the fact that for every $tin[-x_k, -x_{k-1}]$, there exists some $tauin[x_{k-1}, x_k]$ such that $f(t)=f(tau)$.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 10:31




1




1




$begingroup$
@hopefully Technically, you do multiply the inequality, but you also introduce $-t$ into the argument of $f$. I updated my answer to show exactly what happens.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 10:37




$begingroup$
@hopefully Technically, you do multiply the inequality, but you also introduce $-t$ into the argument of $f$. I updated my answer to show exactly what happens.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 10:37




1




1




$begingroup$
@hopefully Well you won't have $f(t)=f(-t)$ any more. To see what exactly the difference will be, I advise you try to do it, and see for yourself!
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 11:20




$begingroup$
@hopefully Well you won't have $f(t)=f(-t)$ any more. To see what exactly the difference will be, I advise you try to do it, and see for yourself!
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 11:20




1




1




$begingroup$
@hopefully That sounds about right, yes
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 11:45




$begingroup$
@hopefully That sounds about right, yes
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 3 '18 at 11:45


















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%2f3023882%2fif-f-is-even-integrable-function-on-0-a-prove-that-f-is-integrable-on-a-a-a%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

Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

Image
0 0 $begingroup$ Need help with this problem. Suppose our lazy professor collects a quiz and a homework assignment from a class of n students one day, then distributes both the quizzes and the homework assignments back to the class in a random fashion for grading. Each student receives one quiz and one homework assignment to grade. (a) What is the probability that every student receives someone else's quiz to grade, and someone else's homework to grade? (b) What is the probability that no student receives both their own quiz and their own homework assignment to grade? In this case, some students may receive their own quiz, and others may receive their own homework assignment. (c) Compute the limiting probability as n approaches infinity in each case. ...
Read more

Aardman Animations

Image
Aardman Animations, Ltd. Aardman Animations Tipo privada Atividade Animação em stop-motion , Animação em CGI Fundação 1972 Fundador(es) Peter Lord David Sproxton Sede Bristol, Inglaterra  Reino Unido Proprietário(s) Dreamworks Pessoas-chave Peter Lord David Sproxton Nick Park Divisões Aardman Features Aardman Digital Aardman Commercials Aardman Broadcast Aardman International Aardman Rights Aardman Effects Aardman 3-D Systems Aardman Nathan Love AardBoiled Website oficial aardman.com ...
Read more

Are they similar matrix

Image
0 $begingroup$ Do $begin{bmatrix} 0&i&0\0&0&1\0&0&0 end{bmatrix} $ and $begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0\-i&0&0\0&1&0 end{bmatrix} $ are similar.Is this True/false Clearly both are nilpotent and one is conjucate transpose of other but how to know if they are similar.i'm stuck. Please help me linear-algebra vector-spaces eigenvalues-eigenvectors generalizedeigenvector share | cite | improve this question edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:38 Vasanth Kris asked Dec 10 '18 at 6:19 ...
Read more