Convergence of improper integrals of the second kind (wrt the Tom Apostol’s definition)

calculusconvergence-divergenceimproper-integrals

The section $10.23$ in Tom Apostol's Calculus vol. $1$ begins with saying that the integral $\int_a^b f(x)dx$ until this section was introduced with the restriction that $f$ is defined and bounded on a finite interval $[a, b]$.

Later, in the same section $10.23$, he defines the improper integral of the second kind as:

Suppose $f$ is defined on the half-open interval $(a, b]$, and assume that the integral $\int_x^b f(t)dt$ exists for each $x$ satisfying $a < x \le b$. Define a new function $I$ as follows: $I(x) = \int_x^b f(t)dt$ if $a < x \le b$.
The function $I$ so defined is called an improper integral of the second kind and is denoted by the symbol $\int_{a+}^b f(t)dt$. The integral is said to converge if the limit $\lim_{x \to a+} I(x) = \lim_{x \to a+} \int_x^b f(t) dt$ exists and is finite. Otherwise, the integral $\int_{a+}^b f(t)dt$ is said to diverge.

My question is why is the definition given with respect to the integral, instead of the integrand? More concretely, if I prove that $\lim_{x \to a+} f(x) = L$, and otherwise $f$ is continuous and defined on $a < x \le b$, could I also conclude that the integral converges? Could you provide a proof of that using the existing definitions?

The problem is that I don't know how to prove that, because both of the definitions do not seem to fit that well. Namely, the first definition requires $f$ to be defined at $a$, and the second definition requires me to compute the integral.

Best Answer

If "$\lim_{x \to a+} f(x) = L$, and otherwise $f$ is continuous and defined on $a < x \le b$" then $f$ can be extended to a continuous function on $[a,b]$ and then by the fundamental theorem on calculus the integral converges ($I$ is even defined and differentiable on $[a,b]$).