A concept from calculus that has always bothered me

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ronaldor9
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus Concept
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of the constant of integration in calculus, particularly in the context of definite and indefinite integrals. Participants explore whether it is necessary to explicitly include the constant of integration when writing integrals, especially in relation to initial conditions and limits of integration.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the constant of integration is implied when writing \(\int p(t) \, dt\) and notes that their differential equations book often includes it.
  • Another participant shares their experience from an honors calculus course where they were instructed to find an antiderivative without including the constant, viewing it as a hassle.
  • A participant explains that the constant is often omitted in definite integrals, suggesting that initial conditions provide a more precise formulation of the solution.
  • There is a discussion about the preference for using forms that incorporate initial conditions, with one participant asserting that this leads to a better representation of the solution.
  • Concerns are raised about notation in a specific example from a book, questioning the omission of a constant in the integration process and suggesting that it could lead to incorrect assumptions about the anti-derivative.
  • Another participant emphasizes that when using the notation for an anti-derivative, the constant is typically implied unless explicitly stated in certain contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of including the constant of integration in various contexts. While some argue that it is often unnecessary in definite integrals due to the presence of limits, others contend that it should always be acknowledged to avoid confusion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential ambiguities in notation and the implications of initial conditions on the representation of integrals. There is an acknowledgment of the importance of clarity in mathematical expressions, particularly when dealing with anti-derivatives and constants of integration.

ronaldor9
Messages
91
Reaction score
1
When one writes [tex]\int p(t) \, dt[/tex] is the constant of integration implied? I have always thought that it wasn't necessary to write [tex]\int p(t) \, dt +k[/tex]. However, in my diff. eq. book the constant is ussually written out, why is this so?

In addition the book also writes [tex]\int_{t_o}^t p(t) \, dt +k[/tex] isn't the constant here unnecessary since we now have the limits of integration included?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's usually written because it's definite.

Suppose

[tex] y ' = f(x, y(x)) \ , y(x_0) = y_0[/tex]

It does seem logical to say that (assuming f is integratable)

[tex] \int y' dx = \int f(x,y(x)) dx \rightarrow y = \int f(x,y(x)) dx + k[/tex]

but since we have initial conditions, we can do better.

[tex] <br /> \int_{x_0}^{x} y'(t) dt = \int_{x_0}^{x} f(t,y(t)) dt \rightarrow y - y_0 = \int_{x_0}^{x} f(t,y(t)) dt[/tex]
Thus,
[tex] y = \int_{x_0}^{x} f(t,y(t)) dt + y_0[/tex]

Better?
 
Last edited:
Thanks l'Hopital
Why is the later form preferred over the first form?
 
Simply because it actually involves the initial conditions.
 
There is one part in my book where it writes [tex]R'(y)=Q(x_0,y)[/tex]
and then by integration [tex]R(y)=\int_{y_0}^y Q(x_0,y)\,dy[/tex].

Shouldn't theauthor here have included a constant at the end of the integral as you have written in you example?
 
ronaldor9 said:
There is one part in my book where it writes [tex]R'(y)=Q(x_0,y)[/tex]
and then by integration [tex]R(y)=\int_{y_0}^y Q(x_0,y)\,dy[/tex].

Shouldn't theauthor here have included a constant at the end of the integral as you have written in you example?
Yes, because with that notation R(y0)= 0 which is not true for all anti-derivatives. I would also object to using "y" both as a limit of integration (and so outside the integral) and as the variable of integration. Much better would be either
[tex]R(y)= \int_{y_0}^y Q(x_0,t)dt+ C[/tex]
or
[tex]R(y)= \int^y Q(x_0, t)dt[/tex]
where we don't need the "C" because the lower limit of integration is left open.

If you write just
[tex]R(y)= \int Q(x_0,y)dy[/tex]
the usual notation for the "anti-derivative", the constant C is implied. You do not write it there. Of course, if you wrote
[tex]R(y)= \int y^2 dy= \frac{1}{3}y^2+ C[/tex]
The constant on the right is necessary.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K