Given a closed interval [a, b] of the real line, a free tagged partitionof is a set
where
and each tag .
The fact that the tags are allowed to be outside the subintervals is why the partition is called free. It's also the only difference between the definitions of the Henstock-Kurzweil integral and the McShane integral.
For a function and a free tagged partition , define
A positive function is called a gauge in this context.
We say that a free tagged partition is -fine if for all
Intuitively, the gauge controls the widths of the subintervals. Like with the Henstock-Kurzweil integral, this provides flexibility (especially near problematic points) not given by the Riemann integral.
It's clear that if a function is integrable according to the McShane definition, then is also Henstock-Kurzweil integrable. Both integrals coincide in the regard of its uniqueness.
In order to illustrate the above definition we analyse the McShane integrability of the functions described in the following examples, which are already known as Henstock-Kurzweil integrable (see the paragraph 3 of the site of this Wikipedia "Henstock-Kurzweil integral").
As is well known, this function is Riemann integrable and the correspondent integral is equal to We will show that this is also McShane integrable and that its integral assumes the same value.
For that purpose, for a given , let's choose the gauge such that and if
Any free tagged partition of can be decomposed into sequences like
, for ,
, for , and
, where , such that
This way, we have the Riemann sum
and by consequence
Therefore if is a free tagged -fine partition we have
, for every , and
, for every .
Since each one of those intervals do not overlap the interior of all the remaining, we obtain
Thus is McShane integrable and
The next example proves the existence of a distinction between Riemann and McShane integrals.
which one knows to be not Riemann integrable. We will show that is integrable in the MacShane sense and that its integral is zero.
Denoting by the set of all rational numbers of the interval , for any let's formulate the following gauge
For any -fine free tagged partition consider its Riemann sum
.
Taking into account that whenever is irrational, we can exclude in the sequence of ordered pairs which constitute , the pairs where is irrational. The remainder are subsequences of the type such that , Since each one of those intervals do not overlap the interior of the remaining, each one of these sequences gives rise in the Riemann sum to subsums of the type
.
Thus , which proves that the Dirichlet's function is McShane integrable and that
For real functions defined on an interval , both Henstock-Kurzweil and McShane integrals satisfy the elementary properties enumerated below, where by we denote indistinctly the value of anyone of those inetegrals.
If is integrable on then is integrable on each subinterval of .
If is integrable on and then is integrable on and .
If is continuous on then is integrable on .
If is monotonous on then is integrable on .
Let be a differentiable and strictly monotonous function. Then is integrable on if and only if is integrable on . In such case .
If is integrable on then is integrable on and , for every .
Let and be integrable on . Then:
is integrable on and .
em .
With respect to the integrals mentioned above, the proofs of these properties are identical excepting slight variations inherent to the differences of the correspondent definitions (see Washek Pfeffer[4] [Sec. 6.1]).
This way a certain parallelism between the two integrals is observed. However an imperceptible rupture occurs when other properties are analysed, such as the absolute integrability and the integrability of the derivatives of integrable differentiable functions.
On this matter the following theorems hold (see[4] [Prop.2.2.3 e Th. 6.1.2]).
Theorem 1 (on the absolute integrability of the McShane integral)[edit]
If is McShane integrable on then is also McShane integrable on and.
Theorem 2 (fundamental theorem of Henstock-Kurzweil integral)[edit]
If is differentiable on , then is Henstock-Kurzweil integrable on and.
In order to illustrate these theorems we analyse the following example based upon Example 2.4.12.[4]
is obviously differentiable at any and differentiable, as well, at , since .
Moreover
As the function
is continuous and, by the Theorem 2, the function is Henstock-Kurzweil integrable on then by the properties 6 and 7, the same holds to the function
But the function
is not integrable on for none of the mentioned integrals.
In fact, otherwise, denoting by anyone of such integrals, we should have necessarily for any positive integer . Then through the change of variable , we should obtain taking into account the property 5:
.
As is an arbitrary positive integer and , we obtain a contradiction.
From this example we are able to conclude the following relevant consequences:
I) Theorem 1 is no longer true for Henstock-Kurzweil integral since is Henstock-Kurzweil integrable and is not.
II) Theorem 2 does not hold for McShane integral. Otherwise should be McShane integrable as well as and by Theorem 1, as , which is absurd.
III) is, this way, an example of a Henstock-Kurzweil integrable function which is not McShane integrable. That is, the class of McShane integrable functions is a strict subclass of the Henstock-Kurzweil integrable functions.
This fact enables to conclude that with the McShane integral one formulates a kind of unification of the integration theory around Riemann sums, which, after all, constitute the origin of that theory.
So far is not known an immediate proof of such theorem.
In Washek Pfeffer[4] [Ch. 4] it is stated through the development of the theory of McShane integral, including measure theory, in relationship with already known properties of Lebesgue integral. In Charles Swartz[5] that same equivalence is proved in Appendix 4.
Furtherly to the book by Russel Gordon[3] [Ch. 10], on this subject we call the attention of the reader also to the works by Robert McLeod[6] [Ch. 8] and Douglas Kurtz together with Charles W. Swartz.[2]
Another perspective of the McShane integral is that it can be looked as new formulation of the Lebesgue integral without using Measure Theory, as alternative to the courses of Frigyes Riesz and Bela Sz. Nagy[7] [Ch.II] or Serge Lang[8] [Ch.X, §4 Appendix] (see also[9]).