The American Mathematical Monthly

ISSN: 0002-9890 (Print) 1930-0972 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uamm20

The Use of Tagged Partitions in Elementary Real

Analysis

Russell A. Gordon

To cite this article: Russell A. Gordon (1998) The Use of Tagged Partitions in
Elementary Real Analysis, The American Mathematical Monthly, 105:2, 107-117, DOI:
10.1080/00029890.1998.12004858

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1998.12004858

Published online: 23 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uamm20
 The Use of Tagged Partitions
in Elementary Real Analysis
Russell A. Gordon

The purpose of this paper is to present alternate proofs of several well known
results in elementary real analysis. An alternate proof of a theorem provides a new
way of looking at the theorem and this fresh perspective is often enough to justify
the new approach. However, a new proof of an old result that is conceptually
easier and points the way to generalizations of the result has obvious benefits. This
is the case, in my opinion, for several of the proofs presented in this paper.
The results to be considered here all depend on the Completeness Axiom; every
nonempty bounded set of real numbers has a supremum. Throughout this paper,
the universe is the set of real numbers, denoted by R. Several useful statements
that are equivalent to the Completeness Axiom are given in the following list:
1. Every Cauchy sequence converges.
2. Every bounded monotone sequence converges.
3. Every bounded sequence contains a convergent subsequence.
4. The intersection of a nested sequence of closed and bounded intervals is
nonempty.
One of these equivalent statements provides the theoretical basis for results such
as the Intermediate Value Theorem, the Extreme Value Theorem, and the
integrability of continuous functions. All of the proofs in this paper use a
consequence of the Completeness Axiom that involves tagged partitions of an
interval. The motivation for this concept can be found in the theory of the
Riemann integral. Although tagged partitions usually appear only in the context of
Riemann sums, we will show that tagged partitions can be used successfully to
prove results about differentiable functions and continuous functions as well. In
other words, the method of tagged partitions is quite versatile.
For the reader who chooses to skim this article as opposed to reading it fully, I
would like to highlight the proofs of Theorems 3, 10, and 14. The proof of
Theorem 3 is a good illustration of this new approach while the proofs of
Theorems 10 and 14 are simpler than the standard proofs found in current
textbooks. We begin with the definition of 8-fine tagged partitions. This concept
has its origins in the theory of the Henstock integral. A thorough treatment of the
Henstock integral can be found in [2].

Definition. A partition of an interval [a, b] is a finite collection of non-overlapping

closed intervals whose union is [a, b]. A tagged partition of [a, b] is a partition of
[a, b] with one point, referred to as the tag, chosen from each interval comprising
the partition. A tagged partition of [a,b] will be denoted by {(ci,[xi-t•x;]):
1 ~ i ~ n}, where
a =x 0 <x 1 <x 2 < ··· <X 11 _ 1 <x 11 = b
and ci E [xi_ 1, xi] is the tag of the interval [xi_,, xi] for each index i. Now let 8
be a positive function defined on [a, b]. A 8-fine tagged partition of [a, b] is a

1998] THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS 107

tagged partition {(c;, [x;_ 1 , x;D: 1 ~ i ~ n} of [a, b] that satisfies
[xi-l,x;] ~ (c;- 8(c;),c; + 8(c;))
for each index i. In words, the positive function 8 (which is often referred to as a
gauge) determines the size of the interval associated with a given tag.
In the theory of the Riemann integral, the function 8 is a constant function that
determines the mesh size of the partition. The introduction of the positive function
8 leads to a subtle but profound change in focus. It takes a few moments of
reflection to grasp fully the concept of a 8-fine tagged partition and some
experience with such partitions to appreciate the extent to which they can be used.
In applications that involve the use of 8-fine tagged partitions, the positive
function 8 is usually designed to guarantee that something "good" happens. Here
are some specific examples that give some idea of the versatility of the function 8;
the proofs presented in this paper provide further illustrations.
1. Suppose that 8: [0, 1] ~ R is defined by

8 (x) = ~fO ~x ~ 1;
{xj2,
.01, tfx-0.
Note that the interval (x - 8(x), x + 8(x)) does not contain 0 unless x = 0.
Consequently, any 8-fine tagged partition of [0, 1] must have 0 as a tag. Using
similar ideas, it is possible to force any finite number of points to be tags.
2. Let {Ik} be a sequence of open intervals in (a, b), let G = U ~= 1lk, and let
H =[a, b] \G. For each x E G, there exists an index k and a positive
number 8(x) such that (x - 8(x), x + 8(x)) ~ Ik. (In essence, 8(x) repre-
sents the distance from the point x to the closed set H.) For each x E H, let
8(x) = 1. This defines a positive function 8 on [a, b]. Suppose that
{(c;, [x; _ 1 , x;D: 1 ~ i ~ n} is a 8-fine tagged partition of [a, b] and let
SG = {i: c; E G}. Since the intervals in the partition are non-overlapping,
oc

L (x; -x;-d ~ L l(Id,

iESc k=l
where /(/k) denotes the length of the interval Ik. In addition, if [x;_ 1, x;] n
H i= 0, then c; E H. That is, any tagged interval that intersects H has a tag
that belongs to H and the sum of the lengths of the intervals that do not
intersect H is governed by the sequence {Ik}.
3. Suppose that F: [a, b] ~ R is differentiable at each point of [a, b] and let
E > 0. For each x E [a, b], there exists 8(x) > 0 such that

IF(t) - F(x) - F'(x)(t- x)l ~ elt- xl

for all t E [a, b] that satisfy It- xl < 8(x). If {(c;, [x;_ 1 , x;D: 1 ~ i ~ n} is a
8-fine tagged partition of [a, b ], then (omitting some algebraic details)

~;~F'(c;)(x; -x;_ 1 )- (F(b) -F(a))l

=I;~ (F'(c;)(x; -x;_,)- (F(x;) -F(x;_,)))l

n
~ L IF'(c;)(x; -x;_ 1 ) - (F(x;)- F(x;_ 1 ))1
i=l
ll

i= 1
=e(b-a).

108 THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS [February

 In other words, every 0-fine tagged partition of [a, b] generates a Riemann
sum ofF' that is close to F(b)- F(a). This represents a proof that, in some
sense, every derivative is integrable and this observation is the motivation for
the development of the Henstock integral. The interested reader should
consult [1] for an elementary discussion of the generality of this integral.
When working with the Riemann integral, one normally thinks of the intervals
as being chosen first (each interval with length less than a prescribed constant o)
then a tag is picked for each interval. There is no question as to the existence of
tagged partitions in this case. The positive function o essentially reverses this
process. The tags must be chosen first; then intervals of the "right size" are chosen
for each tag. For an arbitrary positive function o, the existence of 0-fine tagged
partitions is no longer obvious. If the infimum of the set {o(x): x E [a, b)} is
positive, then it is clear that 0-fine tagged partitions of [a, b] exist-this is
essentially the constant o case once again. If the infimum is 0 (as is the case
in Examples 1 and 2), then a proof of the existence of 0-fine tagged partitions is
required. This is the content of the following theorem.

Theorem 1. If o is a positive function defined on the interval [a, b), then there exists a
o-fine tagged partition of [a, b ].

Proof" Let E be the set of all points x E (a, b] for which there exists a o-fine
tagged partition of [a, x ]. The set E is not empty since it contains the interval
(a, a + o(a))-the one element set {(a, [a, x])} is a 0-fine tagged partition of [a, x]
for each x E (a, a + o(a)). Let z = sup E and note that z E [a, b ]. To complete
the proof, it is sufficient to prove that z belongs to E and that z = b.
Since z = sup E, either z E E or there is a point u E E such that z- o(z) <
u < z. In the latter case, let .9' be a o-firte tagged partition of [a, u] and let
.9' 1 = .9' U {(z, [u, z ])}. Then .9' 1 is a 0-fine tagged partition of [a, z] and this shows
that z E £. Now suppose that z < b. Let u be a point in [a, b] such that
z < u < z + o(z) and let .9'2 = .9' 1 u {(z, [z, u ])}. Then .9'2 is a 0-fine tagged
partition of [a, u] and it follows that u E £,a contradiction to the fact that z is an
upper bound of the set E. We conclude that z = b. •

This proof of the existence of 0-fine tagged partitions makes direct use of the
Completeness Axiom. One may also prove this result using the Nested Intervals
Theorem (statement 4 in the introduction); the details are left to the reader. When
requested to give a proof of this result, students often try a direct approach; the
actual construction of a 0-fine tagged partition. This is not difficult if the number
of points where the function o"goes to 0" is finite. Such attempts by students offer
good opportunities to discuss the full generality of functions and sets. The
similarities between the proof of the existence of 0-fine tagged partitions of [a, b]
and the proof (at least one of the standard proofs) that the interval [a, b] is a
compact set are evident. This is no accident-the two statements are actually
equivalent. However, compact sets are a difficult concept for many students since
the typical student finds open covers, finite subcovers, and manipulations with
large collections of sets rather abstract. A positive function o seems easier to
visualize and the end result, a tagged partition, is easy to grasp: start with a piece
of string, cut it into pieces of various lengths, and mark a point on each piece. In
addition, the definition of a 0-fine tagged partition seems a little more motivated
than the open cover definition of a compact set. For the record, I am not

1998] THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS 109

advocating the elimination of the concept of compact sets; I just feel that this
concept should not appear early in a first course in real analysis.
Tagged partitions can be used to prove the standard results on continuous
functions that involve the Completeness Axiom such as the Intermediate Value
Theorem, the Extreme Value Theorem, and the uniform continuity theorem. The
usual proofs of these results use properties of sequences and are not difficult. The
proofs using 8-fine tagged partitions are not any easier, but they do illustrate
another way to think about these theorems. In this method of proof for the
Intermediate Value Theorem, the existence of the positive function 8 is a simple
consequence of the definition of a continuous function. However, unlike the proof
using the Nested Intervals Theorem, the following proof does not yield a method
for finding the point c.

Theorem 2. Suppose that f: [a, b] ~ R is continuous on [a, b]. If L is a number

between f(a) and f(b ), then there exists a point c E (a, b) such that f(c) = L.

Proof' Suppose that f(a) < L < f(b ); the proof for f(b) < L < f(a) is similar.
Assume that f(x) -=1= L for all x E [a, b]. Since f is continuous at each point x of
[a, b ],
if f(x) < L, there exists 8(x) > 0 such that f(t) < L for all t E [a, b] that
satisfy It -xi < 8(x);
if f(x) > L, there exists 8(x) > 0 such that f(t) > L for all t E [a, b] that
satisfy It- xi < 8(x).
This defines a positive function 8 on [a, b]. Let {(c;, [x;_ 1 , x;]): 1 sis n} be a
8-fine tagged partition of [a, b]. Note that for each index i either f(x) < L for all
x E [x;_ 1 , X;] or f(x) > L for all x E [x;_ 1 , x;]. Since f(x 0 ) = f(a) < L, we find
that f(x) < L for all x E [x 0 , xd. Since f(x 1 ) < L, we find that f(x) < L for all
x E [x 1, x 2 ]. After a finite number of similar steps, we find that f(b) = f(xn) < L,
a contradiction. Hence, there exists a point c E (a, b) such that f(c) = L. •

We next prove that a continuous function defined on [a, b] is bounded on [a, b].
The proof of this result using subsequences is an indirect proof, but with 8-fine
tagged partitions, a direct proof is possible.

Theorem 3. Iff: [a, b] ~ R is continuous on [a, b ], then f is bounded on [a, b].

Proof' Since f is continuous on [a, b ], for each x E [a, b] there exists a positive
number 8(x) such that if(t)- f(x)l < 1 for all t E [a, b] that satisfy It- xi <
8(x). This defines a positive function 8 on [a, b]. Let {(c;, [x;_ 1 , x;D: 1 s i s n} be
a 8-fine tagged partition of [a, b] and let M = max{lf(c;)l: 1 sis n}. Given a
point x E [a, b], there is an index j such that x E [x1_ 1 , x1] and thus
lf(x)l s lf(x) -f(cJI + lf(c1)1 < 1 +M.
This shows that the function f is bounded by 1 + M. •
The proof of the preceding result reveals that the continuity hypothesis is not all
that crucial. The continuity of f at the point x is only used to obtain a local bound
for the function f. A function f is locally bounded at a point x if there exist
positive numbers M and 8 such that lf(t)l s M for all t that satisfy It -xi < 8.
A slight modification in the proof of Theorem 3 yields the following stronger
result.

110 THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS [February

Theorem 4. Iff: [a, b]---+ R is locally bounded at each point of [a, b], then f is
I
bounded on [a, b].

Proof" Since f is locally bounded at each point of [a, b], for each x E [a, b] there
exist positive numbers M(x) and o(x) such that lf(t)l ~ M(x) for all t E [a, b]
that satisfy It - xl < o(x ). This defines a positive function o on [a, b ]. Let
{(c;, [x;-p x;]): 1 ~ i ~ n} be a o-fine tagged partition of [a, b] and let M =
max{M(c): 1 ~ i ~ n}. Given a point x E [a, b ], there is an index j such that
x E [xj_ 1 , x) and thus lf(x)l ~ M(c) ~ M. This shows that the function f is
bounded by M. •

Corollary 5. Iff: [a, b]---+ R has one-sided limits at each point of [a, b], then f is
bounded on [a, b].

Proof" It is a routine exercise to prove that a function with one-sided limits at a

point is locally bounded at that point. •

The Extreme Value Theorem states that a continuous function defined on a

closed interval [a, b] assumes its maximum and minimum values. Once it has been
established that such a function is bounded on [a, b] (Theorem 3), it is necessary to
find points c, d E [a, b] such that f(c) ~ f(x) ~ f(d) for all x E [a, b ]. One way to
proceed is to let M = sup{f(x): x E [a, b]}, assume that f(x) < M for all
x E [a, b], and define a continuous function g on [a, b] by g(x) = 1/(M- f(x)).
The fact that g is then bounded on [a, b] leads to a contradiction. Here is a proof
that makes direct use of 0-fine tagged partitions.

Theorem 6. Iff: [a, b] ---+ R is continuous on [a, b ], then there exist points c, d E [a, b]
such that f(c) ~ f(x) ~ f(d) for all x E [a, b ].

Proof" We prove that there exists a point dE [a, b] such that f(x) ~ f(d) for all
x E [a, b ]; the proof of the existence of a point c is quite similar (or one can
consider the function -f). Let M = sup{f(x ): x E [a, b]} and suppose that
f(x) < M for all x E [a, b]. Since f is continuous on [a, b], for each x E [a, b]
there exist positive numbers o(x) and a(x) such that f(t) < M- a(x) for all
t E [a, b] that satisfy It- xl < o(x). (For example, one could let a(x) =
(M- f(x))/2.) This defines a positive function o on [a, b]. Let {(c;, [xi-1, x;]):
1 ~ i ~ n} be a 0-fine tagged partition of [a, b], let a= min{a(c): 1 ~ i ~ n}, and
note that a is a positive number. Fix x E [a, b] and choose an index j such that
x E [xj _ ~' xJ It follows that
f(x) <M- a(cJ ~M- a.
This inequality, valid for all x E [a, b ], contradicts the definition of the number M.
Hence, there exists a point d E [a, b] such that f(d) = M and it follows that
f(x) ~ f(d) for all x E [a, b]. •

Another familiar result about continuous functions that involves the Complete-
ness Axiom is the fact that a continuous function on the closed interval [a, b] is
uniformly continuous on [a, b]. The typical proof of this fact either uses sequences
and the Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem or open covers and the Heine-Bore! Theo-
rem. Since the Completeness Axiom lies behind the proof of this result, the
uniform continuity theorem can also be proved using 0-fine tagged partitions. The

1998] THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS 111

following proof is similar to the proof that uses the Heine-Borel Theorem, but it
does not require the full power of compact sets.

Theorem 7. Iff: [a, b 1- R is continuous on [a, b 1, then f is unifonnly continuous on

[a, b].

Proof' Let e > 0. For each x E [a, b1 choose S(x) > 0 so that lf(t)- f(x)l < ej2
for all t E [a, b1 that satisfy It- xi < 2S(x). This defines a positive function Son
[a, b 1. Let {(c;, [x; _ 1 , X;]): 1 ~ i ~ n} be a S-fine tagged partition of [a, b 1and let
S = min{S(c): 1 ~ i ~ n}. Suppose that s, t E [a, b1 with It- sl < S and choose
an index j such that s E [xj _ 1, xj 1. Note that
Is- cjl < S(cj);
It- cjl ~ It- sl + Is- cjl < S + S(cj) ~ 2S(cj).
It follows that
lf(t) -f(s)l ~ lf(t) -f(cj)l + lf(cj) -f(s)l <E.
This shows that the function f is uniformly continuous on [a, b 1.
•
It is possible to use S-fine tagged partitions to extend the previous result and
several others as well to the case in which the domain of the function is an
arbitrary closed and bounded set rather than a closed and bounded interval. We
will consider a set to be closed if its complement is an open set (and assume that
the reader is familiar with open sets). To illustrate the adjustments that are
necessary, we will prove the following result.

Theorem 8. Let K be a closed and bounded set. Iff: K- R is continuous on K, then

f is unifonnly continuous on K.

Proof' Let a = inf K and let b =sup K; then K ~[a, b1 and a, bE K. Let e > 0.
Define a positive function S on [a, b] as follows:
if x E K choose S(x) > 0 so that lf(t) - f(x)l < ej2 for all t E K that satisfy
It -xi < 2S(x);
if x E [a, b1 \ K choose S(x) > 0 so that (x- S(x), x + S(x)) n K = 0.
Let {(c;,[X;_ 1 ,xJ): 1 ~ i ~ n} be a &-fine tagged partition of [a,b]. By the
definition of S, it follows that c; E K whenever [x;_ 1 , xJ n K * 0. Let SK =
{i: C; E K} and let S = min(S(c;): i E SK}. Suppose that s, t E K with It- sl < S
and choose an index j such that s E [xj _ 1, xj]. Note that
Is- cjl < S(cj);
It- cjl ~ It- sl + Is- cjl < S + S(cj) ~ 2S(cj).
Since cj E K, it follows that
lf(t) -f(s)l ~ lf(t) -f(cj)l + lf(cj) -f(s)l <e.
This shows that the function f is uniformly continuous on K. •
We now turn to integration theory and prove that continuous functions are
Riemann integrable. The typical proof of this result uses the uniform continuity of
a continuous function on a closed and bounded interval. The use of &-fine tagged

112 THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS [February

partitions to prove that continuous functions are Riemann integrable eliminates
the need to mention uniform continuity. The proof of this result involves the
Cauchy criterion for Riemann integrability and there are various ways to formulate
this criterion. For our purposes, a function f is Riemann integrable on [a, b] if and
only if for each e > 0 there exists a partition {[x;_ 1 , xJ 1 ~ i ~ n} of [a, b] such
that
n
L w(f,[x;_ 1 ,X;])(x; -X;_ 1 ) < E,
i=i

where the oscillation, w(f, [c, d]), of the function f on the interval [c, d] is defined
by
w(f,[c,d]) = sup{lf(t)- f(s)l: s,t E [c,d]}.
It provides one measure of the variability of a function in an interval.

Theorem 9. Iff is continuous on [a, b ], then f is Riemann integrable on [a, b ].

Proof' Let e > 0. Since f is continuous on [a, b ], for each x E [a, b] there exists
8(x) > 0 such that lf(t)- f(x)l < E for all t E [a, b] that satisfy It- xi < 8(x).
This defines a positive function 8 on [a, b ]. Let {(c;, [x; _ 1, X;]): 1 ~ i ~ n} be a
&-fine tagged partition of [a, b ]. Based upon the definition of 8, it is easy to see
that w(f,[x;_ 1 ,x;D ~ 2e for each index i. It follows that
n n
L;w(f,[xi-l,xi]}(x;-x;_d ~ L;2e(x;-X;_ 1 ) =2e(b-a).
i=i i=i

Hence, the function f is Riemann integrable on [a, b ].

•
An interesting and important result in the theory of the Riemann integral
concerns necessary and sufficient conditions for a function to be Riemann inte-
grable: a function f is Riemann integrable on [a, b] if and only iff is bounded and
continuous almost everywhere on [a, b ]. Recall that a set E has measure zero if for
each E > 0 there exists a sequence {Jk} of open intervals such that E <;;; U ~=Jk
and '[,~ = 1 l(Ik) < e; a property is said to hold almost everywhere if it fails to hold
only at points in a set of measure zero. It is not difficult to prove that a Riemann
integrable function is bounded and continuous almost everywhere. The proof of
the converse is more difficult. Consequently, this result (or at least its proof) is
usually omitted in introductory real analysis courses. The proofs that I have seen
(not including those involving the Lebesgue integral) require a knowledge of
compact sets and the details of the construction of the partition are quite tedious.
The proof given here is the simplest one that I have found. Note the similarities
between the following proof and the proof of Theorem 9. In particular, the use of
uniform continuity to prove the preceding result clouds the essential issues
involved with Riemann integrability.

Theorem 10. Iff is bounded and continuous almost everywhere on [a, b ], then f is
Riemann integrable on [a, b ].

Proof' Let M be a bound for the function f on [a, b ], let D be the set of all points
x E [a, b] such that f is not continuous at x, and let e > 0. Since D has measure
zero, there exists a sequence {Jk} of open intervals such that D <;;; U ~= 1Ik and

1998] THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS 113

L~~ 1 1(/k) < ejM. Define a positive function 8 on [a, b] as follows:

if x $ D use the continuity off at x to choose O(x) > 0 so that lf(t) - f(x)l <
ej2 for all t E [a, b] that satisfy It- xi < 8(x);
if x ED choose 8(x) > 0 so that (x - 8(x), x + 8(x)) ~ Ik for some index k.
Let {(c;, [x; _1 , x;D: 1 ::s; i ::s; n} be a 8-fine tagged partition of [a, b] and define
S 0 = {i: c; $ D} and S 0 = {i: c; E D} .
Since the intervals [x;_ 1 , x;] are non-overlapping, we find that
n
L w(f,[x;_ 1 ,x;])(x; -x;_ 1 )
i~l

:S: e( b- a) +2M L l(Id

k~l

<e(b-a+2).
Hence, the function f is Riemann integrable on [a, b]. •
Finally, we consider the use of 8-fine tagged partitions to pro•;e results in which
the derivative is involved. One of the simplest results of this type is the fact that a
function with a positive derivative on an interval is increasing on that interval. This
result is usually proved in calculus textbooks as an easy application of the Mean
Value Theorem. Tracing the roots of the Mean Value Theorem leads to the
Extreme Value Theorem, so it becomes apparent that the Completeness Axiom is
needed in the proof of this monotonicity result. Since there are several intermedi-
ate results prior to the Mean Value Theorem (in the usual scheme), it is easy to
forget that the Completeness Axiom is relevant to this result. There are several
advantages to the proof given here-namely, the Completeness Axiom is more
apparent, continuity is not used explicitly, and few preliminary results are needed.
We want to prove that a function that has a positive derivative at each point of
an interval is increasing on that interval. As a reminder that there is indeed
something to prove here, consider the function F: [ -1, 1] ~ R defined by
2
F(x) = {x/2 + x sin(1/x), if X =I= 0;
0, if X= 0.
This function has a positive derivative at 0, but it is not increasing on any open
interval that contains 0. This indicates that a proof of some sort is needed for the
result under discussion. The purpose of the monotonicity result is to extract global
information (F is increasing on an interval) from local information (F' is positive
at each point).

Theorem 11. Suppose that F: [a, b] ~ R is differentiable at each point of [a, b]

(appropriate one-sided limits are assumed at a and b). If F'(x) > 0 for each
x E [a, b ], then F is increasing on [a, b ].

114 THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS [February

Proof" For each x E [a, b] use the fact that F'(x) > 0 to choose 8(x) > 0 so that
F(t) - F(x)
----->0
t-x
for all t E [a, b] that satisfy 0 < It- xi < 8(x). This defines a positive function 8
on [a, b ]. Suppose that a ~ u < v ~ b and let {(c;, [x;_ 1 , x;]): 1 ~ i ~ n} be a
8-fine tagged partition of [u, v ]. For each index i, we find that F(x;_ 1 ) ~ F(c) ~
F(x) and at least one of these inequalities is strict. It follows that
n
F(v)- F(u) = L (F(x;)- F(x;_ 1 )) > 0
i=l

which is equivalent to F(u) < F(v). Therefore, the function F is increasing on

[a, b]. •

The statement of Theorem 11 is not quite as general as that found in most

calculus books. Using a simple continuity argument, one can use the preceding
result to prove the following result.

Theorem 12. Suppose that F: [a, b] ---.. R is continuous on [a, b] and differentiable at
each point of (a, b). IfF '(x) > 0 for each x E (a, b), then F is increasing on [a, b].

Variations of the argument found in the proof of Theorem 11 can be used to

prove the following facts:
a. If F'(x) ~ 0 for each x E [a, b], then F is nondecreasing on [a, b].
b. If F'(x) = 0 for each x E [a, b], then F is constant on [a, b].
However, it is also possible to use Theorem 11 to prove each of these facts. The
details are left for the interested reader. In addition, the hypotheses of Theorem
11 can be weakened in several ways. Some of these versions of the monotonicity
result involve upper and lower derivates, but we will be content to prove a simpler
version. This version illustrates how 8-fine tagged partitions can deal with an
exceptional set that is countable. A property is said to hold nearly everywhere if the
set of points where it fails to hold is countable.

Theorem 13. Suppose that F is continuous on [a, b ]. IfF is differentiable nearly

everywhere on [a, b] and ifF' > 0 nearly everywhere on [a, b ], then F is nondecreasing
on[a,b].

Proof" Let D be the set of all points x E [a, b] such that either F'(x) does not
exist or F'(x) ~ 0 and express D as a sequence {dk: k E z+}. Let e > 0. For each
x E [a, b] \D, use the fact that F'(x) > 0 to choose 8(x) > 0 so that
F(t) - F(x)
----->0
t-x
for all t E [a, b] that satisfy 0 < It- xi < 8(x). If x = dk, use the continuity ofF
at x to choose 8(x) > 0 so that IF(t)- F(x)l < ej2k for all t E [a, b] that satisfy
It- xi < 8(x). This defines a positive function 8 on [a, b). Suppose that a ~ u <
v ~band let {(c;,[X;-px;)): 1 ~ i ~ n} be a 8-fine tagged partition of [u,v]. By
combining intervals if necessary, we may assume that each tag occurs only once.

1998] THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS 115

Let

S 0 = {i: c; $ D} and Sv = {i: c; ED}.

Note that F(x)-F(x;_ 1 )>0 for each iES0 and that F(x;)-F(x;_ 1 )>
-2(ej2k) for some unique k for each i E Sv. It follows that
n
F(v)- F(u) = L (F(x;)- F(x;_J))
i=l

-2E.
Since E > 0 was arbitrary, we find that F(v) ;::: F(u). Therefore, the function F is
nondecreasing on [a, b]. •

Our final result is the fact that an absolutely continuous singular function is
constant. This result, which is outside the realm of elementary real analysis, is
important in Lebesgue integration theory. In most current textbooks (see [3] for
instance), the proof of this result uses the Vitali Covering Lemma. This lemma is
familiar to students at this level since it is used in the proof that monotone
functions are differentiable almost everywhere. Since the concepts involved in the
Vitali Covering Lemma are difficult for many students, the following proof may be
easier to understand.

Theorem 14. Suppose that F is absolutely continuous on [a, b]. IfF' = 0 almost
everywhere on [a, b ], then F is constant on [a, b ].

Proof" Let E be the set of all points x E [a, b] for which either F'(x) does not
exist or F'(x) -=1= 0. By hypothesis, the set E has measure zero. Let E > 0 and
choose a positive number 7J such that I:7= 1 IF(t;)- F(s;)l < E whenever Us;, tJ
1 ~ i ~ n} is a finite collection of non-overlapping intervals in [a, b] that satisfy
I:7= 1 lt; - s;l < 7J. Since E has measure zero, there exists a sequence {Ik} of open
intervals such that E t::;:; U ~= Jk and I:~= 1 1(/k) < 7J. Define a positive function 8
on [a, b] as follows:
if x $ E use the fact that F'(x) = 0 to choose 8(x) > 0 so that IF(t)- F(x)l
~ elt- xi for all t E [a, b] that satisfy It- xi < 8(x);
if x E E choose 8(x) > 0 so that (x - 8(x), x + 8(x)) t::;:; Ik for some index k.
Let {(c;, [x;_ 1 , x;]): 1 ~ i ~ n} be a 8-fine tagged partition of [a, b] and define

S0 ={i:c;$E} and SE={i:c;EE}.

Note that IF(x;)- F(x;_ 1 )1 ~ e(x;- X;_ 1 ) for each i E S 0 and that

116 THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS [February

It follows that

IF(b)- F(a)l =I;~ (F(x;)- F(x;-1))1

:$ L, IF(x;) - F(x;_ 1 )I + L, IF(x;) - F(x;-dl

:$ L,e(x;-X;-d+e
iES 0

:$e(b-a+l).
Since e > 0 was arbitrary, we find that F(b) = F(a). Similarly, it can be shown
that F(x) = F(a) for all x E (a, b). This completes the proof. •

My aim in this paper has been to demonstrate the versatility of 8-fine tagged
partitions and their use outside the context of integration theory. Although I do
not anticipate the use of 8-fine tagged partitions to transform the teaching of real
analysis, I hope this discussion provides new insight into old results. By introducing
8-fine tagged partitions early, the transition to integration theory and the abstract
notion of a compact set can be made easier. In addition, some of the ideas here
would make good "research" questions for advanced undergraduates.

REFERENCES

1. R. G. Bartle, Return to the Riemann Integral, Amer. Math. Monthly 103 (1996), 625-632.
2. R. A Gordon, The integrals of Lebesgue, Denjoy, Perron, and Henstock, Graduate Studies in
Mathematics, Vol. 4, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1994.
3. H. L. Royden, Real analysis, 3rd ed., Macmillan, New York, 1988.

RUSSELL A. GORDON received a BA from Blackburn College, an MS from Colorado State Univer-
sity, and a PhD from the University of Illinois. His dissertation, written under the influence of Jerry
Uhl, mutated into a graduate textbook on nonabsolute integration. He has also written a textbook on
elementary real analysis, which explains his current interest/preoccupation with this subject. Beyond
academia, his three sons keep him busy, especially an active 3 year old. A weekly date with his wife
Brenda is a welcome change of pace from a very busy life. He also enjoys running, playing basketball,
and hiking in the mountains.
Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA 99362
gordon @whitman. edu

1998] THE USE OF TAGGED PARTITIONS 117