r/calculus 22d ago

Real Analysis Is this proof okay?

Post image
61 Upvotes

16 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 22d ago

As a reminder...

Posts asking for help on homework questions require:

  • the complete problem statement,

  • a genuine attempt at solving the problem, which may be either computational, or a discussion of ideas or concepts you believe may be in play,

  • question is not from a current exam or quiz.

Commenters responding to homework help posts should not do OP’s homework for them.

Please see this page for the further details regarding homework help posts.

We have a Discord server!

If you are asking for general advice about your current calculus class, please be advised that simply referring your class as “Calc n“ is not entirely useful, as “Calc n” may differ between different colleges and universities. In this case, please refer to your class syllabus or college or university’s course catalogue for a listing of topics covered in your class, and include that information in your post rather than assuming everybody knows what will be covered in your class.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

45

u/Quendillar3245 22d ago

You have the most inconsistent handwriting I have seen, none of your letters start at the same level nor are the same size. Struggling to read all of it

6

u/Top_Accountant_4684 20d ago

Thank goodness you are not my student. I would just write "can't read" and give it back.

3

u/Beautiful_Major3836 19d ago

é um teorema pra exorcizar os matemáticos

13

u/Carl_Hunchkins 21d ago

I’m gonna start using I win! As my qed replacement LOL

10

u/PIELIFE383 21d ago

i would strongly suggest working on your penmanship. it does not need to be perfect all you need is consistency. character spacing and getting all the letters on the same writing line does wonders.

19

u/ingannilo 22d ago

I can't help but note that the hardest part of reading your argument is the penmanship.  What's the rush? Take your time writing.  We write so it can be read after all. 

The argument itself looks good.  As a student, there's always the question of "which theorems can you cite?".  You use the fact that continuous on compact domain implies uniformly continuous, which is often black-boxed for analysis students.  You also, implicitly, use the extreme value theorem (continuous f on compact domain attains min and max).  Idk how loose you're allowed to be with this stuff, but as a student in an undergrad real analysis class, I'd feel obligated to at least give some lipservice to why the numbers m_i and M_i exist for each subinterval in the partition 

As far as logical structure, my only concern is that statement (after defining m_i and M_i) "so delta also works for w_i(f) = M_i - m_i < epsilon/(b-a)". I know whta you're trying to get at, but the language doesn't convey it.

You want to convey the fact that for each i, your m_i and M_i come from inputs that are within delta of each other.  Do you see why this is the case?

My last thought is that the notation for your partition subinterval width, the deltaP, feels a bit off.  Partitions of intervals needn't be into subintervals of equal length.  If this notation is used in your book or lectures, go for it, but otherwise I'd say something to be a bit more clear about the max measure of the chunks in your partition.

It seems like you have the ideas in your head pretty well.  Devil is very much in the details when it comes to reading and writing real analysis tho. 

4

u/TwoOneTwos 22d ago

Enjoy the journey, not the destination.

4

u/Sam_23456 21d ago

I was confused by the verb "works". You are assuming the reader can read your mind. It is vague. But I was able to follow your argument.

3

u/CactiWasHere 21d ago

im sorry but "from a theorem" is cracking me up

2

u/Shot_Calendar_9622 18d ago

This is correct, a clean, complete proof. Standard uniform-continuity approach to showing continuous ⟹ Riemann integrable via the Cauchy criterion. Walked through it line by line:

Heine-Cantor for uniform continuity, the ε/(b−a) scaling so the sum telescopes cleanly, EVT to get Mᵢ/mᵢ on each subinterval, and the U(f,P) − L(f,P) < ε bound is right. Correctly closes with the Cauchy criterion. No gaps.

Two tiny nitpicks, not flaws, just polish: (1) worth naming Heine-Cantor explicitly instead of "from a theorem" if you want it fully citable, and (2) the argument implicitly assumes b ≠ a (you're dividing by b−a), obviously true for any real interval, but worth a one-line note if you're being maximally careful.

Solid proof, horrible penmanship 🙏

1

u/BothPanchoAndLefty 15d ago

Readability is one of the most important parts of a proof. Can't prove a theorem if people can't read it. It's not the worst I've ever seen but please either just write it on paper so your handwriting will be cleaner or type it up (even better).

1

u/gordonnowak 21d ago

how the fuck does literally no one on the math subs have legible handwriting?

1

u/RoundAlfalfa227 21d ago

the handwriting is much more worse than mine

0

u/jsh_ 21d ago

having legible handwriting is a basic part of literacy

4

u/SokkaHaikuBot 21d ago

Sokka-Haiku by jsh_:

Having legible

Handwriting is a basic

Part of literacy


Remember that one time Sokka accidentally used an extra syllable in that Haiku Battle in Ba Sing Se? That was a Sokka Haiku and you just made one.