How Do You Derive an Explicit Formula from an Integral Equation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matrix_204
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explicit Formula
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving an explicit formula from an integral equation, specifically examining the integral of a function, such as the integral from 0 to x of tg(t)dt equating to x+x^2. Participants are exploring the relationship between integrals and their corresponding functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and its implications for finding antiderivatives. There are mentions of integration techniques, such as integration by parts, and the challenges of recalling specific antiderivatives. Questions are raised about the nature of the function F(x) in relation to its integral.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with various interpretations and approaches being explored. Some participants provide insights into the graphical understanding of integrals and derivatives, while others question the assumptions underlying the integral's properties. There is no explicit consensus on a singular method or solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the general methods of integration and the conditions under which certain functions yield specific results. There is a focus on the limitations of learning integration techniques and the need for context-specific approaches.

matrix_204
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
How do u find an explicit formula when given an integral of a function.
For example, the integral from 0 to x of tg(t)dt=x+x^2, how do u find the formula for g(t)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This involves a portion of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which says:

The function:

[tex]F(x) = \int_{0}^{x} f(t) dt[/tex]

is an indefinite integral or antiderivative of f. That is:

[tex]F'(x) = f(x)[/tex]

Explicit form is simply in terms of a function F.
 
Evaluate that integral by parts...(You could have written t*g(t),the way you did,it can be mistaken with "tangent" of 't').

Daniel.
 
There is no general method. We do integration by using the "anti-derivative" of a function f: a function F whose derivative is f- and that often is a matter of "remembering" a correct f. There are ways of altering a function whose anti-derivative you do not immediately "remember" to a simpler function with a related anti-derivative- but those are often "ad hoc" and can be used only for certain situations. One of annoying things about learning (and teaching) "Calculus II" (generally "methods of integration" is that you have to learn many unrelated "methods" (tricks) that work only in limited situations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Speaking about the Fundamental thm of calculus, i was wondering why is it that for F(x)= int from 0 to x for f(t)dt, the function F is the constant function 0?
 
Here, matrix_204, is the is the simplest answer you could possibly find:

Consider a function f(x). If this function is smooth, we can naturally associate with it another function A(x), defined as "the area between f(x) and the x-axis counted from the point x = 0 to x". We do not have a formula for A(x), but we know that it is a function because for each value x there is only one area A.

Now, consider breaking up the area under the curve f into many infinitesimally thin rectangles (the same type rectangles we use in a Reimann sum), each of which has an infinitesimal area dA. This is a very graphical argument, so I hope you are picturing these little rectangles dA. Now, how can we express the area of a little rectangle dA in terms of its height and width?

The height of the rectangle at point x is f(x) and the width of the rectangle is dx. So we have established the fundamental theorem:

dA = f(x) dx

dA/dx = f(x)

Now we can find a formula for A(x), it is the function whose derivative is f(x).

I am curious to see what anyone thinks of this derivation (which I made up, but do not expect to be unique to me). Obviously, it is about the loosest thing this side of Newton's fluxions, but in a certain real sense it works.
 
matrix_204 said:
Speaking about the Fundamental thm of calculus, i was wondering why is it that for F(x)= int from 0 to x for f(t)dt, the function F is the constant function 0?



It isn't,unless the integrand is identically zero

[tex]f(t) \equiv 0[/tex].

Daniel.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
51
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K