Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-08-27 (gpt-5)
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Riemann's criterion: a bounded f on [a,b] is Darboux integrable if and only if for every real ε>0 there is a partition P with U(f,P)−L(f,P)<ε

Statement

Let a<b be reals and let f:[a,b]→R be bounded (Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set). Then f is Darboux integrable on [a,b] (The lower and upper Darboux integrals of a bounded f on [a,b] as sup⁡PL(f,P) and inf⁡PU(f,P), Darboux integrability as their equality, and the notation ∫abf) if and only if

for every real ε>0 there is a partition P of [a,b] with U(f,P)−L(f,P)<ε

(For bounded f on [a,b] and a partition P: the infimum mi and supremum Mi of f on the i-th subinterval, and the lower and upper Darboux sums L(f,P)=∑imiΔi and U(f,P)=∑iMiΔi, Partition of [a,b] as a finite strictly increasing list a=t0<t1<⋯<tn=b, its subintervals and their lengths, its mesh, refinement, and the common refinement of two partitions).

This is the criterion every later integrability proof on this page uses. It replaces a statement about a supremum and an infimum over all partitions, which cannot be checked directly, by the exhibition of a single partition for each ε. The criterion says nothing about the value of the integral; that separate lower-and-upper-sum estimate places the integral between L(f,P) and U(f,P) for the same P.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Reals a<b and a bounded f:[a,b]→R.

[A1]

The criterion: for every real ε>0 there is a partition P of [a,b] with U(f,P)−L(f,P)<ε.

[L1]
[L2]

ε-characterisation of the supremum: if u=sup⁡S with S nonempty then for every real ε>0 there is s∈S with s>u−ε (Epsilon characterisation of the supremum). Dually, if ℓ=inf⁡S then for every real ε>0 there is s∈S with s<ℓ+ε (Epsilon characterisation of the infimum, Greatest lower bound (infimum)).

[L4]

Ordered-field arithmetic: adding a constant to both sides preserves an inequality, the order is total and transitive, and t⋅2−1>0 for t>0 (Order is preserved by adding a constant and by adding inequalities, Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication, Ordered field, Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)). These order-arithmetic facts are stated by their sources for the strict order only; the nonstrict forms used below follow by adjoining the equality case, in which the two sides coincide.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Write D:=∫ab‾f−∫ab‾f, a real number with D≥0 by [L1]; f is integrable exactly when D=0.

L1
1.2

The criterion is sufficient. Assume [A1] and let a real ε>0 be given. Fix a partition P with U(f,P)−L(f,P)<ε. By [L1], ∫ab‾f≥L(f,P) and ∫ab‾f≤U(f,P), so D≤U(f,P)−L(f,P)<ε.

A1L1L4choose
1.3

The criterion is necessary; this half of the proof is steps 1.3, 2.2 and 3.1, and its symbols are its own. Assume f is integrable and write I for the common value ∫ab‾f=∫ab‾f. Let a real η>0 be given; then η⋅2−1>0 by [L4].

L1L4
2.1

So 0≤D<ε for every real ε>0. If D>0, taking ε:=D gives D<D, which is false; hence D=0 and f is integrable by step 1.1.

step 1.1step 1.2L4
2.2

By [L2] applied to L, whose supremum is I, there is a partition P1 with L(f,P1)>I−η⋅2−1; by [L2] applied to U, whose infimum is I, there is a partition P2 with U(f,P2)<I+η⋅2−1.

step 1.3L1L2choose
3.1

Put P∗:=P1∨P2, which refines both by [L3]. Then L(f,P∗)≥L(f,P1)>I−η⋅2−1 and U(f,P∗)≤U(f,P2)<I+η⋅2−1, so U(f,P∗)−L(f,P∗)<η by [L4]. Since η>0 was arbitrary, the criterion holds.

step 2.2L3L4
4.1

Steps 1.2 and 2.1 give the implication from the criterion to integrability, and steps 1.3, 2.2 and 3.1 give the converse; the two halves are independent and use no symbol in common, and together they are the stated equivalence.

step 2.1step 3.1∎

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

37 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources