Why can't the indefinite integral be written with sigma notation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between sigma notation (Ʃ) and integral notation (∫), highlighting that while both represent summation, Ʃ sums over finite increments and ∫ sums over infinitesimal increments. The user proposes a method to express indefinite integrals using sigma notation but realizes that the result evaluates to a number rather than a function, which is a fundamental requirement of indefinite integrals. They also explore the relationship between indefinite integrals and the area under curves, noting that the motivation for these concepts is not inherently linked. Additionally, the user inquires about an algebraic process for indefinite integration similar to differentiation, suggesting that reversing the differentiation process may be the most practical approach. The conversation emphasizes the complexities and nuances of understanding integration and its notation.
hddd123456789
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Hi, I've been wondering this since I started learning integration. I get that ∫ is basically an elongated S for "sum", because that is what it is basically doing. But then Ʃ does the same thing as well. If I'm understanding the difference, it is that Ʃ increments by finite measures, whereas ∫ increments by infinitesimal measures. But even if that is the difference, can't you 'simulate' infinitesimal incrementation with sigma notation? I gave it a shot below:

∫f(x)dx=\sum^{∞}_{i=1}f(idx)dx+\sum^{∞}_{i=1}f(-idx)dx=\sum^{∞}_{i=1}f(idx)dx+f(-idx)dx=\sum^{∞}_{i=-∞}f(idx)dx

Which is basically saying that the indefinite integral is equal to a sum. The way to get the sum is to divide the real number line from 0 to ∞ into ∞ parts. I get that ∞ isn't any particular number, but shouldn't we at least be able to say that each of these ∞ parts has a length of dx?

If that's the case, then you would take two sums, one from 0 to ∞, and the other from 0 to -∞ and increment by dx as you sum each area given by f(i*dx)*dx from the positive and negative ends of the number line. What do you think?

[Edit: I see that the first two sums is actually not equal to the third, since the first two actually skip over 0. So technically, the indefinitely integral is equal to the last sum, not the first two?]
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The serious problem with the formula you give is that the result of an indefinite integral is supposed to be a function. The formula you give evaluates to a number.

The less serious problem is the one you already pointed out: ∞ is not a number. That caveat aside, the approach you give is the essense of the Riemann integral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_integral
 
Yeah, as soon as I tried to solve out using that formula, I realized for myself that this is basically trying to sum up the whole are under the curve to infinity. Basically it is equal to the definite integral from -∞ to ∞, as below?

∫^{∞}_{-∞}f(x)dx=\sum^{∞}_{i=-∞}f(idx)dx
 
And actually, I had another question that was related enough that I figured I would ask in the same thread. I sort of understand, I think, that the motivation for calculating the area under the curve and determining of the anti-derivative/indefinite integral were not necessarily related. And that the indefinite integral said something about the area under the curve wasn't known a priori?

Well, anyway, what I'm wondering is when I see for example the following:

f(x)=\frac{d}{dx}F(x)=\frac{F(x+dx)-F(x)}{dx}

I can apply it algebraically using infinitesimals to, for example, f(x)=x^2, as per:

\frac{d}{dx}x^2=\frac{(x+dx)^2-x^2}{dx}
=\frac{x^2+2xdx+dx^2-x^2}{dx}
=\frac{2xdx+dx^2}{dx}
=\frac{dx(2x+dx)}{dx}
=2x+dx
=2x+0
=2x

But is there an equivalent algebraic process for indefinite integration that applies at least to polynomials? I get that integration is basically like taking an infinitesimal sum, which from the scale of real numbers would be akin to taking an infinite sum of infinitesimals, so the only method that I can think of is the algebraic equivalence of a series. But these just seem so clunky for me. Am I missing something, or is the only practical way to determine the indefinite integral to just follow the derivation process in reverse?

And apologies if my terminology is a bit non-rigorous.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Back
Top