Integrals: Definition, Difference and Meaning

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Alkatran
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concepts of integrals and anti-derivatives, exploring their definitions, differences, and applications in mathematics and physics. Participants engage with both theoretical aspects and practical examples, including the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and various types of integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that an integral can be understood as dividing a curve into smaller sections and summing their areas, with the accuracy increasing as the sections become smaller.
  • There is a discussion on the difference between integrals and anti-derivatives, with some noting that anti-differentiation is the inverse of differentiation.
  • Participants mention that the numbers at the top and bottom of an integral represent the boundary values for the interval of integration.
  • One participant questions whether anti-differentiation gives the area under the curve, leading to a discussion about the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and its implications.
  • Another participant introduces a coin flipping example to illustrate the concept of averages and sums, noting the distinction between counting integers and continuous values.
  • Some participants discuss the Lebesgue integral and its relation to sums, explaining how it can be applied to discrete sets and probability measures.
  • There is mention of the Riemann-Stieltjes integral as an alternative to the Riemann integral, highlighting differences in how intervals are measured.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of integrals and anti-derivatives. While some points, such as the relationship between anti-differentiation and area under the curve, are acknowledged, the discussion includes multiple competing views and remains unresolved on several technical aspects.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific mathematical definitions and theorems without fully resolving the implications or limitations of these concepts. There is also a reliance on various mathematical frameworks, such as Riemann and Lebesgue integrals, which may not be universally agreed upon.

Alkatran
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
I feel embarassed for asking this, but:

An integral is just dividing a curve into smaller sections and adding up their areas, right? The smaller the section the closer the estimate?

How does an integral differ from an anti-derivative?

What do the numbers at the top and bottom of the integral long s sign mean? From (bottom value) to (top value)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
An integral is just dividing a curve into smaller sections and adding up their areas, right? The smaller the section the closer the estimate?

Very loosely speaking, yes.


How does an integral differ from an anti-derivative?

Antidifferentiation is the inverse operation to differentiation.


What do the numbers at the top and bottom of the integral long s sign mean? From (bottom value) to (top value)?

Boundary values. For 1-dimensional integrals, this notation is shorthand for saying the domain of integration is the (directed) interval (a, b).
 
as hurkly said, that's an integral is really a riemann sum. ul learn it later so don't rush :)
 
But doesn't anti-differentiation give the area under the curve?

If I go from position to position 4 in 4 seconds, I was moving at 1m/s:

x = x^1 -> 1*x^0 = 1

So if my speed is 1 I can do the inverse to get the area under the curve

1 = 1*x^0 -> x^1/1 = x (+ R)
 
Well I'm getting physics questions now asking me to find the integral. It's all via hand but I like to know the theory behind things.
 
But doesn't anti-differentiation give the area under the curve?

Yes; it can be proven that anti-differentiation very nicely corresponds to integration. The theorem is aptly named the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus! It has two parts:

[tex] \int_a^b f'(x) \, dx = f(b) - f(a)[/tex]

and

[tex] \frac{d}{dx} \int_a^x f(t) \, dt = \lim_{t \rightarrow x} f(x)[/tex]

The proof, IIRC, is fairly straightforward: just write down the riemann sum definition of the integral and the limit definition of the derivative, and chug your way through it.
 
So how about an example?

Let's say we want to count the average number of times you have to flip a coin and get a head.

The chance of 1 is 1/2, the chance of 2 is 1/4. The chance of x is 1/2^x

So for the average, we take each x, multiply it by it's chance, and sum them all up.
t(x) = x/2^x

I know this isn't exactly an 'area under the curve' because you actually only count integers and not all numbers, but anyways:

What is the sum of all positive integers x in t(x)? (I know the answer is 2)
 
Actually, in the general theory of integration, sums are integrals too.


I'll loosely introduce the idea of a Lesbegue integral, applying it to your coin flipping example.


Here, you have a topological space, X, which is simply the positive integers with the discrete topology.

You have a measure μ -- a function which takes subsets of X to real numbers that satisfies some axioms that encapsulate the idea of "size".

Here, μ can be defined by its values on singleton sets: μ({n}) = 2^-n. μ is actually a special sort of measure called a probability measure. (I think simply because μ(X) = 1)


To define an integral with respect to this measure, you first start with characteristic functions: for any subset S of X, define

[tex] \chi_S(x) := \left\{<br /> \begin{tabular}{ll}<br /> 1 & x \in S \\<br /> 0 & x \notin S<br /> \end{tabular}[/tex]

It's easy to define the integral of these things:

[tex] \int_T \chi_S \, d\mu := \mu(S \cap T)[/tex]

You then extend the integral in the obvious way to any linear combination of character functions. (for technical reasons, you do it only for nonnegative ones) Call these step functions.


You can then extend the integral to any positive "measurable" function. (I'll omit the definition) If f is a nonnegative measurable function, consider all possible step functions that are less than or equal to f. Then, you take the integral of all of them, and the sup is the integral of f.

That is:

[tex] \int_T f \, d\mu := \sup_{\phi <= f} \int_T \phi \, d\mu[/tex]

In this particular example, you can prove that it is equal to:

[tex] \int_T f \, d\mu := \sum_{t \in T} f(t) \mu({t})[/tex]

whether T is finite or infinite.


In the case where d&mu; is the usual measure on the real numbers, and f is a nonnegative Riemann integrable function, you can show that the integral defined above has the same value as the Riemann integral.


Then, you continue extending the definition of the integral to other cases (such as allowing functions to be negative), and you get the Lesbegue integral.
 
You don't really need the Lebesque integral to treat sums as integrals, just the "Riemann-Stieljes" integral.

The difference between the "Riemann" integral and "Riemann-Stieljes" integral is that, with Riemann-Stieljes, instead of measuring the "base" by Δ x= xn- xn-1, you measure it by α(xn)- &alpha(xn-1) where α can be any increasing function.

As long as α is differentiable, the Riemann-Stieljes integral, [itex]\int f(x)d\alpha[/itex], is the same as the Rieman integral, [itex]\int f(x)\frac{d\alpha}{dx} dx[/itex].

But if &alpha; is the step function [x], The Riemann-Stieljes integral is just the sum
[itex]\Sigma f(n)[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K