A proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, exploring its rigorous versions, historical context, and connections to other mathematical theorems. Participants share their own interpretations and seek clarification on the theorem's formal proofs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks for a rigorous version of the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and expresses curiosity about its historical attribution.
  • Another participant mentions that James Gregory first published a version in 1667 and that Augustin L. Cauchy provided a modern form in 1823, citing Wikipedia.
  • Some participants describe their understanding of the theorem, relating the area under the derivative curve to the difference in y-values of the antiderivative curve, using the concept of infinitesimal rectangles.
  • There are references to the theorem being a special case of Stokes' theorem and Gauss' divergence theorem, with various historical figures associated with these concepts.
  • Participants request links to resources for further understanding of rigorous versions of the theorem.
  • One participant recommends a specific book on Riemann integration, claiming it has an excellent exposition on the subject.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of familiarity with the theorem and its proofs, but there is no consensus on a single rigorous version or interpretation. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about historical figures and their contributions are referenced without verification, and the discussion includes informal proofs and interpretations that may lack formal rigor.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, its historical context, and rigorous mathematical proofs may find this discussion beneficial.

Rishabh Narula
Messages
61
Reaction score
5
is there a rigorous version of this proof of fundamental theorem of calculus?if yes,what is it?and who came up with it?
i sort of knew this short proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus since a long while...but never actually saw it anywhere in books or any name associated with it.
i know it must be known...but still I've been curious about it so just wanted to ask.

so here goes my proof...

imagine two curves.one is deravitive and the other its antideravitive.we want the area under the deravitive curve.and the fundamental theorem says that the area under the deravitive curve is the difference between two y values of the antideravitive curve.I simply justify that by saying...the area under the deravitive curve as mentioned in many books is sum of infnite tiny rectangles each of area f(x)dx.now this area of each rectangle is also equal to small change dy in antideravitive curve since dy of antideravitive curve is also instantaneous slope times dx or again f(x)dx.thus on left side of fundamental theorem we are adding up infinite small rectangle areas to get the total area...and on right handside we are calculating the sum of infinite dy s by finding the difference between two y values of antideravitive curve.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rishabh Narula said:
is there a rigorous version of this proof of fundamental theorem of calculus?
Of course. I even suspect: many!
if yes,what is it?and who came up with it?
"The first to publish this was in 1667 James Gregory in Geometriae pars universalis ... His modern form is from Augustin L. Cauchy (1823)." (Wikipedia)
i sort of knew this short proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus since a long while...but never actually saw it anywhere in books or any name associated with it.
i know it must be known...but still I've been curious about it so just wanted to ask.

so here goes my proof...

imagine two curves.one is deravitive and the other its antideravitive.we want the area under the deravitive curve.and the fundamental theorem says that the area under the deravitive curve is the difference between two y values of the antideravitive curve.I simply justify that by saying...the area under the deravitive curve as mentioned in many books is sum of infnite tiny rectangles each of area f(x)dx.now this area of each rectangle is also equal to small change dy in antideravitive curve since dy of antideravitive curve is also instantaneous slope times dx or again f(x)dx.thus on left side of fundamental theorem we are adding up infinite small rectangle areas to get the total area...and on right handside we are calculating the sum of infinite dy s by finding the difference between two y values of antideravitive curve.
It is also a special case of Stoke's theorem (1850; modern version Cartan 1945) and Gauß' divergence theorem (Lagrange 1762; Gauß 1813; G. Green 1825; M. Ostrogradski 1831 with the first formal proof).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and Rishabh Narula
fresh_42 said:
Of course. I even suspect: many!

"The first to publish this was in 1667 James Gregory in Geometriae pars universalis ... His modern form is from Augustin L. Cauchy (1823)." (Wikipedia)

It is also a special case of Stoke's theorem (1850; modern version Cartan 1945) and Gauß' divergence theorem (Lagrange 1762; Gauß 1813; G. Green 1825; M. Ostrogradski 1831 with the first formal proof).
hey thanks for the answer.could you provide links too?
 
Rishabh Narula said:
hey thanks for the answer.could you provide links too?
I have found all of them on some language version of Wikipedia. There are also links, but usually to some books with the corresponding theorems.
 
fresh_42 said:
I have found all of them on some language version of Wikipedia. There are also links, but usually to some books with the corresponding theorems.
oh,okay,i'll just google.would love to understand rigrous versions of this.
 
I highly recommend the book "the real numbers and real analysis" by Ethan Block for the topic of Riemannintegration. It has the best exposition on the subject I have seen so far and has facts I didn't see in other textbooks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K