Search results

By the way Mathwonk, I'm really sorry the browser erased all of your work. Thats horribly crummy. :frown: ~Kitty

Right. Doesn't adding C just mean that the antiderivative belongs to a family of antiderivatives that are all verticle translations of one another? ~Kitty

Math, I really don't see how this theorem is really the mean value theorem. Isn't the mean value theorem f(c)(b-a) which is really (1/b-a)(b-a)? Grr (I get furstrated when I get confused)...getting confused...:devil: ~Kitty

Lol, I think its safe to say that it is what he what he meant, but it was in a joking manner. I understand it I think what confuses me is the proof of this theorem. ~Kitty

Wow...I need a minute to process that... :bugeye: ~Kitty

I didn't understand this one either. My book says even less than that. :frown: ~Kitty

My book says there is a second fundamental theorem of calculus. ~Kitty

I get it now! Yay. Thanks for the patience to explain it. :biggrin: ~Kitty

So by replacing it with u then you can just deal with the numbers without the square root and then once everything is worked out then you can take the square root. Do I have this correct? ~Kitty

Also what's the purpose of changing the variable from x to u? What's the difference between integrating with respect to x or respect to u? Its still integrating with respect to a variable. ~Kitty

OH! So you CAN do that because all you've done is multiplied by a name for one inside the radical! That would have made one of my problems so much easier. Thanks for explaining. :biggrin: ~Kitty

I understand what it is but what does it mean? What about the other theorems? ~Kitty

How can you write 1 + Cx when the original is 1/x + C? Pardon my ingnorance on this subject, but we just started these last week.

Can someone break down these theorems for me please because my book is horrible at explaining them. The examples the book gives shows the initial question but then the answer and none of the steps in between even on the very simple questions. I'm confused. ~Kitty