I'm trying to prove that the integral of a constant function (λx. c) over {a..<b} is equal to (b-a)*c. Now I'm trying to use HOL-Analysis.Interval_Integral and have defined the lemma. How would I go about proving this?
Not sure, but maybe the lemmas 'integral_completion' and 'interval_integral_const' can solve this.
Christian Zimmerer said:
I'm trying to prove that the integral of a constant function (λx. c) over {a..<b} is equal to (b-a)*c. Now I'm trying to use HOL-Analysis.Interval_Integral and have defined the lemma. How would I go about proving this?
Well that is definitely not true. That's the integral over c
from -∞
to ∞
.
If you want to use the Lebesgue integral you can one of the following:
term "set_lebesgue_integral lebesgue {a..<b} (λ_. c) = T"
term "lebesgue_integral lebesgue (λx. c * indicator {a..<b} x) = T"
term "interval_lebesgue_integral lebesgue (ereal a) (ereal b) (λ_. c :: real)"
They're all pretty much equivalent.
(and there's some nice notation defined as well, but you'll see that yourself when you type them in)
You could also just use lborel
instead of lebesgue
here because it doesn't make a difference in this case.
(lebesgue = completion lborel
)
You can also use the Henstock–Kurzweil integral though:
term "((λx. c) has_integral (c * (a - b))) {a..<b}"
term "integral {a..<b} (λx. c) = c * (a - b)"
It is convertible to the Lebesgue integral.
Last updated: Dec 21 2024 at 16:20 UTC