Reading guide · Proof index

Mixed derivatives and the compact-interval integral

Prerequisite companion. This is an attributed adaptation and extension of Jiří Lebl, Basic Analysis, version 6.3, freely accessible author edition, under CC BY-SA 4.0. The source sections actually read for these arguments are §§5.1–5.3, 7.5, 8.6 and 9.1. Complete earlier programme proofs are retained and bound in integration-proof-chain.json; this companion supplies their used omissions and the integral Taylor formula needed by the Morse reduction.

The earlier topology and differential chains, including the ordered complete real-field axioms, finite-dimensional norms, derivative rules, mean-value theorem and smooth inverse theorem, remain in force. This chapter concerns bounded-interval Riemann integration. It does not claim the general improper or Lebesgue integration, multidimensional substitution or exponential contracts needed elsewhere in the full stationary-phase lesson.

P11. Higher derivatives and Hessian symmetry

P11.1. Equivalence of the two definitions of CrC^r

The earlier companion defines CrC^r recursively by requiring the total derivative to be Cr−1C^{r-1}. Lebl §8.6 instead requires every ordered partial derivative through order rr to exist and be continuous. These definitions agree for maps between finite-dimensional real spaces.

First, a map f=(f1,…,fm)f=(f_1,\ldots,f_m) is differentiable exactly when all its components are differentiable. If Df(p)=ADf(p)=A, applying a coordinate projection to its remainder gives the component derivative, since a coordinate's absolute value is at most the vector norm. Conversely assemble the component derivatives into a matrix AA. If rj(h)r_j(h) is the jjth component remainder, then

∣f(p+h)−f(p)−Ah∣∣h∣≤mmax⁡j∣rj(h)∣∣h∣⟶0.(P11.1) \frac{|f(p+h)-f(p)-Ah|}{|h|} \leq\sqrt m\max_j\frac{|r_j(h)|}{|h|}\longrightarrow0. \tag{P11.1}

The finite maximum tends to zero by taking the minimum of the component thresholds. Empty coordinate blocks give the unique zero map. The same coordinate inequalities characterize continuity. By induction on rr, they characterize recursive CrC^r regularity as well, because the derivative matrices consist of finitely many component derivatives.

For r=1r=1, the equivalence with continuous partials is the complete Proposition 8.4.6, including P10.3's omitted base case. Suppose the equivalence holds at order r−1r-1. If ff is recursively CrC^r, every entry of DfDf is Cr−1C^{r-1}. Those entries are the first partials by Proposition 8.3.9, so the induction hypothesis supplies all their ordered partials through order r−1r-1, continuously. This gives all ordered partials of ff through order rr.

Conversely, if those ordered partials exist continuously, Proposition 8.4.6 makes ff a C1C^1 map. Each first partial has continuous ordered partials through order r−1r-1, so is recursively Cr−1C^{r-1} by induction. Assembling the entries shows Df∈Cr−1Df\in C^{r-1}, hence f∈Crf\in C^r. This proves the equivalence for every finite order; being smooth means satisfying it for every order. No commutation of derivatives was assumed in this argument. □\square

P11.2. The exact scope of the mixed-partial proof

The programme contains the full double-mean-value proof of Proposition 8.6.2 at sec_mvhighordders.html#sec_mvhighordders-10. It compares the same rectangle difference quotient in both orders. For distinct indices, choose B(p,r)⊂UB(p,r)\subset U and 0<s,t<r/30<s,t<r/3; all points of the closed rectangle, including its edges, lie in this ball, since their distance from pp is at most s+t<2r/3s+t<2r/3.

The source supplies points p0,p1p_0,p_1 in that rectangle with

G(s,t)=∂ℓ∂mf(p0)=∂m∂ℓf(p1). G(s,t)=\partial_\ell\partial_m f(p_0) =\partial_m\partial_\ell f(p_1).

Each point tends to pp because its distance is bounded by s+ts+t. Given ε>0\varepsilon>0, continuity therefore makes both respective errors from their values at pp less than ε\varepsilon, once s,ts,t are sufficiently small. Subtracting the two equal expressions for GG gives

∣∂ℓ∂mf(p)−∂m∂ℓf(p)∣<2ε. |\partial_\ell\partial_m f(p)-\partial_m\partial_\ell f(p)| <2\varepsilon.

If the left side were positive, taking ε\varepsilon smaller than half of it would contradict this bound. Thus it is zero. Equal indices already give the same expression. This records the boundary and limit steps in the existing proof without replacing its mean-value argument. P11.1 verifies that its C2C^2 hypothesis agrees with the one used here.

For a CkC^k function, any two orders of a fixed list of at most kk differentiations give the same result. To swap two adjacent operators, first apply the inner operators to obtain a function with at least two continuous derivatives. Apply the just-proved second-order identity on its open domain. Any remaining outer derivatives preserve this equality, because equal functions have equal difference quotients. Any permutation is a finite sequence of adjacent swaps: successively move the desired first, second and later entries into position. This proves the assertion for every order, including repeated indices. In particular the smooth Hessians in P4 and M1 are symmetric. □\square

P12. The omitted integral inputs

P12.1. Suprema and infima used by Darboux sums

All sets in this paragraph are nonempty and bounded when both extrema are used. If every a∈Aa\in A is at most every b∈Bb\in B, each bb is an upper bound for AA, so sup⁡A≤b\sup A\leq b. Thus sup⁡A\sup A is a lower bound for BB, and sup⁡A≤inf⁡B\sup A\leq\inf B.

For two sets, write A+B={a+b:a∈A,b∈B}A+B=\{a+b:a\in A,b\in B\}. The number sup⁡A+sup⁡B\sup A+\sup B is an upper bound for A+BA+B. By P6.2, for each ε>0\varepsilon>0 choose a>sup⁡A−ε/2a>\sup A-\varepsilon/2 and b>sup⁡B−ε/2b>\sup B-\varepsilon/2. Their sum exceeds sup⁡A+sup⁡B−ε\sup A+\sup B-\varepsilon. No smaller upper bound is therefore possible, proving sup⁡(A+B)=sup⁡A+sup⁡B\sup(A+B)=\sup A+\sup B. Negating the sets proves inf⁡(A+B)=inf⁡A+inf⁡B\inf(A+B)=\inf A+\inf B, since inf⁡(−A)=−sup⁡A\inf(-A)=-\sup A and sup⁡(−A)=−inf⁡A\sup(-A)=-\inf A, directly by the order definitions.

For c>0c>0, csup⁡Ac\sup A bounds cAcA above. Choosing a>sup⁡A−ε/ca>\sup A-\varepsilon/c proves it is the least such bound. Thus sup⁡(cA)=csup⁡A\sup(cA)=c\sup A; negation proves the corresponding infimum formula. For c=0c=0, the image set is {0}\{0\}; for c<0c<0, factor out the minus sign and use the preceding negation identities. These statements justify the extrema operations used in Lebl's integral-linearity proof.

If A⊂BA\subset B and every b∈Bb\in B is at most some a∈Aa\in A, then sup⁡A=sup⁡B\sup A=\sup B: inclusion gives one inequality, and the second condition makes every upper bound for AA an upper bound for BB. Reversing order proves the analogous infimum assertion. This supplies the cofinal-partition step left to an exercise in Lemma 5.2.1.

Finally, for bounded functions f≤gf\leq g on the same nonempty set, inf⁡f≤inf⁡g\inf f\leq\inf g because inf⁡f\inf f is a lower bound for all values of gg; likewise sup⁡f≤sup⁡g\sup f\leq\sup g. For functions on the same set, every value of f+gf+g lies between inf⁡f+inf⁡g\inf f+\inf g and sup⁡f+sup⁡g\sup f+\sup g. These give inequalities, without asserting equality when the two extrema require different points. □\square

P12.2. Upper refinement and the necessary integrability criterion

Use Lebl's definitions of a partition PP, its lower and upper sums L(P,f),U(P,f)L(P,f),U(P,f), and the lower and upper Darboux integrals. The complete lower-refinement proof is Proposition 5.1.7. For its omitted upper half, each refined interval is contained in its original interval, so its supremum M~q\widetilde M_q is at most the original MiM_i. Multiplying by positive refined lengths and summing over that original interval gives

∑q=ki−1+1kiM~qΔx~q≤Mi∑q=ki−1+1kiΔx~q=MiΔxi. \sum_{q=k_{i-1}+1}^{k_i}\widetilde M_q\Delta\widetilde x_q \leq M_i\sum_{q=k_{i-1}+1}^{k_i}\Delta\widetilde x_q =M_i\Delta x_i.

Summing over ii proves U(P~,f)≤U(P,f)U(\widetilde P,f)\leq U(P,f). The index qq in the source definition of Δx~q\Delta\widetilde x_q must start at 1, not 0; no undefined x~−1\widetilde x_{-1} is used.

Proposition 5.1.13 proves that arbitrarily small gaps U(P,f)−L(P,f)U(P,f)-L(P,f) imply Riemann integrability. Conversely suppose the common integral is II. By the defining supremum and infimum choose partitions P1,P2P_1,P_2 with L(P1,f)>I−ε/2L(P_1,f)>I-\varepsilon/2 and U(P2,f)<I+ε/2U(P_2,f)<I+\varepsilon/2. Their union is a finite partition and refines both, so

U(P1∪P2,f)−L(P1∪P2,f)<ε. U(P_1\cup P_2,f)-L(P_1\cup P_2,f)<\varepsilon.

This proves the necessary half that will be used below. For any finite list of integrable functions, take the union of the chosen partitions to obtain all their small-gap bounds on one common partition. □\square

P12.3. Negative scalars, addition, restrictions and orientation

The positive-scalar part of Proposition 5.2.4 already has a written proof. For its negative-scalar exercise, P12.1 gives

L(P,−f)=−U(P,f),U(P,−f)=−L(P,f). L(P,-f)=-U(P,f),\qquad U(P,-f)=-L(P,f).

Taking the defining extrema gives ∫‾(−f)=−∫‾f\underline\int(-f)=-\overline\int f and ∫‾(−f)=−∫‾f\overline\int(-f)=-\underline\int f. Thus −f-f is integrable when ff is, with integral −∫f-\int f. Combining this with the proved nonnegative-scalar case gives every real scalar.

For the addition exercise, choose a common partition with the sum of the two Darboux gaps smaller than ε\varepsilon, using P12.2. The pointwise extrema inequalities of P12.1 imply

L(P,f)+L(P,g)≤L(P,f+g)≤U(P,f+g)≤U(P,f)+U(P,g). L(P,f)+L(P,g)\leq L(P,f+g)\leq U(P,f+g) \leq U(P,f)+U(P,g).

Consequently the Darboux gap of f+gf+g is less than ε\varepsilon, so Proposition 5.1.13 proves its integrability. Both ∫(f+g)\int(f+g) and ∫f+∫g\int f+\int g lie in the displayed outside interval, whose length is less than ε\varepsilon. Their difference is therefore zero, proving full linearity. Repeated application proves linearity for any finite sum. The unused general Darboux subadditivity assertion is not needed in this proof.

For Corollary 5.2.3, let [c,d]⊂[a,b][c,d]\subset[a,b] with c<dc<d. If c>ac>a, split at cc by Proposition 5.2.2 to obtain integrability on [c,b][c,b]; if c=ac=a, it is already known. If d<bd<b, split that interval at dd; if d=bd=b, no second split is needed. This proves the restriction exercise in all endpoint cases. Define the integral on a singleton to be 0 and define ∫yxf=−∫xyf\int_y^x f=-\int_x^y f for x<yx<y. These are orientation conventions, not limits of undefined partitions.

Within a fixed interval [a,b][a,b], put J(x)=∫axfJ(x)=\int_a^x f. Additivity gives ∫xyf=J(y)−J(x)\int_x^y f=J(y)-J(x) when x<yx<y; the definitions give it when x=yx=y and x>yx>y. Subtracting these identities proves ∫xzf=∫xyf+∫yzf\int_x^z f=\int_x^y f+\int_y^z f in every order of the three points. In particular, changing the base point of an antiderivative integral changes it by a constant, completing Remark 5.3.4. □\square

P12.4. The norm bound and passing a uniform error through an integral

For f:[a,b]→Rmf:[a,b]\to\mathbb R^m with Riemann-integrable components, define its integral componentwise. Its norm is also integrable. To see this, on any partition interval the reverse triangle inequality and the coordinate bound give

∣∣f(x)∣−∣f(y)∣∣≤∣f(x)−f(y)∣≤∑j=1m∣fj(x)−fj(y)∣≤∑j(Mij−mij). \bigl||f(x)|-|f(y)|\bigr|\leq |f(x)-f(y)| \leq\sum_{j=1}^m |f_j(x)-f_j(y)| \leq\sum_j(M_{ij}-m_{ij}).

Taking a supremum in xx and an infimum in yy, by P12.1, bounds the oscillation of ∣f∣|f| by that sum. Therefore its Darboux gap is at most the sum of the component gaps. A common partition from P12.2 makes this arbitrarily small, proving integrability of ∣f∣|f|.

Write I=∫abfI=\int_a^b f. If I≠0I\ne0, let v=I/∣I∣v=I/|I|. Finite linearity, the Euclidean Cauchy–Schwarz bound and integral monotonicity (Proposition 5.2.6) give

∣I∣=v⋅I=∫abv⋅f(t) dt≤∫ab∣f(t)∣ dt.(P12.1) |I|=v\cdot I=\int_a^b v\cdot f(t)\,dt \leq\int_a^b |f(t)|\,dt.\tag{P12.1}

For I=0I=0 the same inequality follows from nonnegativity of the last integral. In particular ∣∫abf∣≤(b−a)sup⁡∣f∣|\int_a^b f|\leq(b-a)\sup|f|. Complex-valued integrals are the case m=2m=2, using their real and imaginary components.

If fλf_\lambda and ff are integrable and sup⁡[a,b]∣fλ−f∣→0\sup_{[a,b]}|f_\lambda-f|\to0, the same bound and linearity give

∣∫abfλ−∫abf∣≤(b−a)sup⁡[a,b]∣fλ−f∣⟶0.(P12.2) \left|\int_a^b f_\lambda-\int_a^b f\right| \leq(b-a)\sup_{[a,b]}|f_\lambda-f|\longrightarrow0.\tag{P12.2}

This is the precise uniform-error result used in Theorem 9.1.1. It does not assume that an arbitrary pointwise limit can pass through an integral. □\square

P12.5. Endpoint and domain details in the fundamental theorem

The programme supplies the full proofs of both forms of the fundamental theorem, Theorems 5.3.1 and 5.3.3. In the latter, a derivative at an endpoint of [a,b][a,b] means the appropriate one-sided derivative. At interior points it is the ordinary two-sided derivative. P12.3 justifies its signed integral differences when the increment is negative. Its final non-strict error estimate proves the strict limit definition by starting with half the requested error. A different integration base point changes the primitive by a constant, by P12.3, and hence has the same derivative.

In the substitution proof of Theorem 5.3.5, the primitive of a continuous f:[c,d]→Rf:[c,d]\to\mathbb R may be evaluated at an endpoint of that interval. To apply the earlier open-domain chain rule without a boundary assumption, extend ff to the real line by the constant value f(c)f(c) to the left and f(d)f(d) to the right. This extension is continuous: away from the junctions the assertion is inherited or constant, and at a junction the original one-sided continuity and the identical constant value give the same bound on both sides. If c=dc=d, use the constant function f(c)f(c) everywhere.

The primitive F~(y)=∫g(a)yf~(u) du\widetilde F(y)=\int_{g(a)}^y\widetilde f(u)\,du is consequently C1C^1 on an open interval containing the whole range of gg, by the proved fundamental theorem on each bounded subinterval. Its derivative is f~\widetilde f. The open-domain chain rule now applies to F~∘g\widetilde F\circ g at every interior point of [a,b][a,b], including points where gg reaches cc or dd. The source's first-fundamental-theorem argument gives exactly its stated oriented substitution formula. No monotonicity or injectivity of gg is required. This is only the one-variable formula; multidimensional change of variables remains a separate proof obligation. □\square

P12.6. Integration by parts and the required Taylor formula

For u,v∈C1([a,b])u,v\in C^1([a,b]), the product derivative is continuous. The product rule and the first fundamental theorem therefore give

∫abu(t)v′(t) dt=u(b)v(b)−u(a)v(a)−∫abu′(t)v(t) dt.(P12.3) \int_a^b u(t)v'(t)\,dt =u(b)v(b)-u(a)v(a)-\int_a^b u'(t)v(t)\,dt.\tag{P12.3}

This follows by integrating (uv)′=u′v+uv′(uv)'=u'v+uv' and using linearity; all integrands are continuous and hence integrable by Lemma 5.2.7. Vector-valued vv is handled componentwise.

Let g∈CN([0,1];Rm)g\in C^N([0,1];\mathbb R^m), N≥1N\geq1. Define

RN=1(N−1)!∫01(1−t)N−1g(N)(t) dt. R_N=\frac1{(N-1)!}\int_0^1(1-t)^{N-1}g^{(N)}(t)\,dt.

The first fundamental theorem gives R1=g(1)−g(0)R_1=g(1)-g(0). For N≥2N\geq2, apply (P12.3) with u(t)=(1−t)N−1u(t)=(1-t)^{N-1} and v=g(N−1)v=g^{(N-1)}. The endpoint term at 1 vanishes, and the one at 0 is −g(N−1)(0)-g^{(N-1)}(0). Since u′=−(N−1)(1−t)N−2u'=-(N-1)(1-t)^{N-2}, this gives

RN=RN−1−g(N−1)(0)(N−1)!. R_N=R_{N-1}-\frac{g^{(N-1)}(0)}{(N-1)!}.

Induction now proves the full integral-remainder identity

g(1)=∑j=0N−1g(j)(0)j!+1(N−1)!∫01(1−t)N−1g(N)(t) dt.(P12.4) g(1)=\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\frac{g^{(j)}(0)}{j!} +\frac1{(N-1)!}\int_0^1(1-t)^{N-1}g^{(N)}(t)\,dt.\tag{P12.4}

The polynomial derivative used here follows by the product rule applied to its N−1N-1 equal factors. Applying the fundamental theorem to −(1−t)N/N-(1-t)^N/N also gives ∫01(1−t)N−1 dt=1/N\int_0^1(1-t)^{N-1}\,dt=1/N. Thus (P12.1) bounds ∣RN∣|R_N| by sup⁡∣g(N)∣/N!\sup|g^{(N)}|/N!.

For M1, take g(t)=f(q+tv,u′,s)g(t)=f(q+tv,u',s) and N=2N=2. Repeated chain rules give g′(0)=v∂1f(q,u′,s)=0g'(0)=v\partial_1f(q,u',s)=0 and g′′(t)=v2∂12f(q+tv,u′,s)g''(t)=v^2\partial_1^2f(q+tv,u',s). Formula (P12.4) is precisely the identity (M1.3), including its factor 2 in the definition of AA. It holds for positive, zero and negative vv on any segment contained in the chart. No exchange of two integrals is used. □\square

P12.7. Smooth dependence on all parameters of a compact integral

Let U⊂RpU\subset\mathbb R^p be open, and suppose that f(t,z)f(t,z) and all its ordered zz-partial derivatives through order rr are continuous on [a,b]×U[a,b]\times U. Then

H(z)=∫abf(t,z) dt H(z)=\int_a^b f(t,z)\,dt

is CrC^r and every such parameter derivative is the integral of the corresponding derivative of ff. The assertion holds for all finite rr, for r=∞r=\infty, and for finite-dimensional vector values.

Fix z0z_0, and choose a closed ball KK centred at z0z_0 with positive radius, contained in UU. The product [a,b]×K[a,b]\times K is closed and bounded in a Euclidean space, hence compact. To verify closedness directly, a point outside either factor has a positive-distance neighbourhood still outside that factor; coordinate projections do not increase distance. Boundedness follows from the sum of the squared coordinate bounds. F0-COMP therefore makes each continuous integrand on this product uniformly continuous.

For z→z0z\to z_0, this gives sup⁡t∣f(t,z)−f(t,z0)∣→0\sup_t|f(t,z)-f(t,z_0)|\to0. P12.4 proves continuity of HH. For a coordinate increment hejhe_j sufficiently small to stay in the interior of KK, the one-variable mean-value argument of the existing Theorem 9.1.1 gives, for each scalar component, a point θ\theta between 0 and hh with

f(t,z+hej)−f(t,z)h=∂jf(t,z+θej). \frac{f(t,z+he_j)-f(t,z)}h=\partial_j f(t,z+\theta e_j).

Uniform continuity of ∂jf\partial_j f makes the difference between this quotient and ∂jf(t,z)\partial_j f(t,z) tend uniformly in tt to zero. The intermediate point may depend on tt; the uniform bound does not. By linearity and (P12.2),

∂jH(z)=∫ab∂jf(t,z) dt. \partial_j H(z)=\int_a^b\partial_j f(t,z)\,dt.

The earlier continuity argument applied to ∂jf\partial_j f shows that this partial derivative is continuous jointly in zz. Repeat with each ordered derivative of ff. Finite induction gives every ordered partial through order rr, continuously; P11.1 identifies this with CrC^r regularity. Applying the argument at every finite order proves the smooth case. Vector values follow componentwise. When p=0p=0 there are no parameter derivatives; when a=ba=b every integral is the zero map. These cases satisfy the same conclusion directly. □\square

Use in the Morse reduction

P11 supplies the mixed-partial input in the Schur-complement calculation P4. P12 supplies the precise Taylor and compact-parameter integration inputs in M1. The full earlier inverse/implicit and signature proofs remain unchanged. The global Fourier integrals, exponential identities and multidimensional Jacobian substitutions needed by the analytic module are still separate obligations.