What is the True Definition of Indefinite Integrals?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the unconventional definition of an indefinite integral presented in an electrical engineering course, which equates it to an improper integral from negative infinity to a variable limit. This definition raises questions about its validity, particularly regarding the existence of limits for the antiderivative as it approaches negative infinity. Participants note the distinction between definite and indefinite integrals, emphasizing that the latter represents a family of functions rather than a single function. The context of Laplace transforms is suggested as a reason for the professor's approach, as it aligns with functions that are zero for negative time. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities and variations in teaching mathematical concepts in engineering versus traditional math courses.
cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
38
Well, this is an embarrassingly elementary question, but in my lecture slides (for an electrical engineering course, not a math course) the prof suddenly springs this claim on us:

The true definition of an indefinite integral is:

\int{f(t)dt} \equiv \int_{-\infty}^{t} {f(\tau) d\tau}

Well, I've never seen this before in my calculus text, and my attempt to make sense of it doesn't go so well. From what we know already, if F(t) is an antiderviative of f(t), then the left hand side becomes:

\int{f(t)dt} = F(t) + C

In comparison, from what I know of improper integrals, the right hand side should be:

\int_{-\infty}^{t} {f(\tau) d\tau} = \lim_{a \rightarrow -\infty} \int_{a}^{t} {f(\tau) d\tau}

= F(t) - [\lim_{a \rightarrow -\infty} F(a)]

So this "definition" is only true if the limit of the function F(t) as t approaches negative infinity exists and is either constant or zero. Why should this be true in general?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Nope,the definition of the indefinite integrals (is that an oxymoron,or what??:bugeye:) of real valued functions over a certain domain of \mathbb{R} is simply (original notation)

I(f(x))=:\left \{F(x)+C\left|\right\frac{dF(x)}{dx}=f(x),\frac{dC}{dx}=0\right\}

So the indefinite integral of a function is not a function,but a set of functions...

Daniel.
 
I don't know why your prof. said that, but I suspect he introduces it, because it would be important to realize in his notation for the remainder of the course.
Since it's an engineering class, I guess he can do that :rolleyes:

The biggest difference to note between a definite and an indefinite integral is that the former is a number, while the second is a function, or family of functions (a general notation for an antiderivative).
 
Haha, yes, our engineering classes are quite ridiculous sometimes compared to our math and physics classes since they take so many liberties with the math! So not to worry, I'm not in such dire straits as it first may seem (for instance, I'm well aware of the difference between indefinite and definite integrals), its just that I came across this and it seemed totally off the wall. The only thing I can think of is that since he introduced it in the context of Laplace transforms (this was in the course of him trying to show us what taking the Laplace transform of the integral of a function results in), and all of the functions in the time domain that he seems to want us to worry about are zero for t less than zero! (If they aren't so by definition, then he just multiplies them by the unit step function which "steps up" at zero, so that they are).

I like Daniel's definition. I have not seen it expressed that way before, though it makes perfect sense. :smile:

Thanks everyone.
 
U'll have to take care and 'report anything suspicious'...:wink:

Daniel.
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top