« first day (628 days earlier)      last day (3027 days later) » 

6:01 AM
@TheGreatDuck Sorry, but I do not know wht the sentence mean.
Are you referring to this? "The indefinite integral of a function MUST be continuous (or fixably discontinuous) for the general scope of the function."
From your post:
4
Q: Theorems Involving Integration (confirmation)

TheGreatDuckI came up with these few theorems and I am curious whether or not my hypothesis are true. I don't really have a method for proving these, mind you. I'm more considering these as things I've noticed to be true. I just don't know whether they are always true. Jump Series Theorem For any function ...

For this part, you might have a look at:
3
A: Is an integral always continuous?

Pedro TamaroffOne can prove the following THM Let $f:[a,b]\to\Bbb R$ be Riemann integrable over its domain. Define a new function $F:[a,b]\to\Bbb R$ by $$F(x)=\int_a^x f(t)dt$$ Then $F$ is continuous. That is, the map $$f\mapsto \int_a^x f$$ sends $\mathscr R[a,b]$ to $\mathscr C[a,b]$. PROOF Let $c\in[a...

 
6:18 AM
Probably you mean something else.
But I do not know what "unbroken function" means.
 
 
9 hours later…
3:12 PM
Today I saw for the first time that somebody referred to the Banach fixed-point theorem as Banach-Caccioppoli theorem.
Italian Wikipedia says this: "Caccioppoli giungerà autonomamente a questo risultato nel 1931."
Google Translate translated this as: "Caccioppoli independently come to this result in 1931 ."
Google also returns some books and papers using this name for the theorem.
There are also some hits for Caccioppoli on this site, although not all of them are about this result: math.stackexchange.com/search?q=Caccioppoli
And there are also 4 hits for Cacciopoli: math.stackexchange.com/search?q=Cacciopoli Typo, I guess?
 
3:47 PM
No, the continuing continuity one. The one that states removing the jumps is unnecessary for subsequent integrals. It /seems/ like that step in the process would be unneeded if the previous one is continuous but either my sense of things is wrong or that statement is false.
 

« first day (628 days earlier)      last day (3027 days later) »