Though Riemann sums had been considered earlier, at least in particular cases (for example, by Cauchy), the general version we consider today was introduced by Riemann, when studying problems related to trigonometric series, in his paper Ueber die Darstellbarkeit einer Function durch eine trigonometrische Reihe. This was his Habilitationsschrift, from 1854, published posthumously in 1868.

Riemann’s papers (in German) have been made available by the Electronic Library of Mathematics, see here. The text in question appears in section 4, Ueber den Begriff eines bestimmten Integrals und den Umfang seiner Gültigkeit. The translation below is as in

A source book in classical analysis. Edited by Garrett Birkhoff. With the assistance of Uta Merzbach. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1973. MR0469612 (57 #9395).

Also zuerst: Was hat man unter zu verstehen?

Um dieses festzusetzen, nehmen wir zwischen und der Grösse nach auf einander folgend, eine Reihe von Werthen an und bezeichnen der Kürze wegen durch , durch durch und durch einen positiven ächten Bruch. Es wird alsdann der Werth der Summe

von der Wahl der Intervalle und der Grössen abhängen. Hat sie nun die Eigenschaft, wie auch und gewählt werden mögen, sich einer festen Grenze unendlich zu nähern, sobald sämmtliche unendlich klein werden, so heisst dieser Werth .

In Birkhoff’s book:

First of all: What is to be understood by ?

In order to establish this, we take the sequence of values lying between and and ordered by size, and, for brevity, denote by , by by , and proper positive fractions by . Then the value of the sum

will depend on the choice of the intervals and the quantities . If it has the property that, however the and the may be chosen, it tends to a fixed limit as soon as all the become infinitely small, then this value is called .

(Of course, in modern presentations, we use instead of , and say that the approach rather than become infinitely small. In fact, we tend to call the collection of data , a tagged partition of , and call the maximum of the the mesh or norm of the partition.)

This is a very interesting question (and I really want to see what other answers you receive). I do not know of any general metatheorems ensuring that what you ask (in particular, about consistency strength) is the case, at least under reasonable conditions. However, arguments establishing the proof theoretic ordinal of a theory $T$ usually entail this. You […]

This is false; take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_set for a quick introduction. For details, look at Kechris's book on Classical Descriptive Set Theory. There you will find also some information on the history of this result, how it was originally thought to be true, and how the discovery of counterexamples led to the creation of desc […]

This is open. In $L(\mathbb R)$ the answer is yes. Hugh has several proofs of this, and it remains one of the few unpublished results in the area. The latest version of the statement (that I know of) is the claim in your parenthetical remark at the end. This gives determinacy in $L(\mathbb R)$ using, for example, a reflection argument. (I mentioned this a wh […]

A classical reference is Hypothèse du Continu by Waclaw Sierpiński (1934), available through the Virtual Library of Science as part of the series Mathematical Monographs of the Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Sierpiński discusses equivalences and consequences. The statements covered include examples from set theory, combinatorics, […]

There is a new journal of the European Mathematical Society that seems perfect for these articles: EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences. The description at the link reads: The EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences is dedicated to publishing authoritative surveys and high-level expositions in all areas of mathematical sciences. It is a peer-reviewed periodical […]

You may be interested in the following paper: Lorenz Halbeisen, and Norbert Hungerbühler. The cardinality of Hamel bases of Banach spaces, East-West Journal of Mathematics, 2, (2000) 153-159. There, Lorenz and Norbert prove a few results about the size of Hamel bases of arbitrary infinite dimensional Banach spaces. In particular, they show: Lemma 3.4. If $K\ […]

You just need to show that $\sum_{\alpha\in F}\alpha^k=0$ for $k=0,1,\dots,q-2$. This is clear for $k=0$ (understanding $0^0$ as $1$). But $\alpha^q-\alpha=0$ for all $\alpha$ so $\alpha^{q-1}-1=0$ for all $\alpha\ne0$, and the result follows from the Newton identities.

Nice question. Let me first point out that the Riemann Hypothesis and $\mathsf{P}$-vs-$\mathsf{NP}$ are much simpler than $\Pi^1_2$: The former is $\Pi^0_1$, see this MO question, and the assertion that $\mathsf{P}=\mathsf{NP}$ is a $\Pi^0_2$ statement ("for every code for a machine of such and such kind there is a code for a machine of such other kind […]

For brevity's sake, say that a theory $T$ is nice if $T$ is a consistent theory that can interpret Peano Arithmetic and admits a recursively enumerable set of axioms. For any such $T$, the statement "$T$ is consistent" can be coded as an arithmetic statement (saying that no number codes a proof of a contradiction from the axioms of $T$). What […]

[…] 11. Section 7.1. Riemann sums. Homework: 7.1: 2, 4, 6, […]