Calculus Confusion over Calculus Book example footnote

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a specific example from "Calculus" by Robert A. Adams and Christopher Essex, focusing on the application of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the Chain Rule. The main point of confusion is the notation used in the derivative of the function G(x), particularly the appearance of the number 5 in parentheses, which led to uncertainty about its meaning. Participants clarify that this notation refers to the upper limit of the integral and is necessary for understanding the application of the Chain Rule. The conversation also touches on the importance of clear notation in mathematical texts, as well as the role of the Chain Rule in differentiating composite functions. Ultimately, the discussion resolves the initial confusion, affirming the clarity and correctness of the mathematical principles involved.
mcastillo356
Gold Member
Messages
634
Reaction score
342
Hi,PF

The book is "Calculus" 7th ed, by Robert A. Adams and Christopher Essex. It is about an explained example of the first conclusion of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, at Chapter 5.5.

I will only quote the step I have doubt about:

Example 7 Find the derivatives of the following functions:

(b) ##G(x)=x^2\,\displaystyle\int_{-4}^{5x}{\,e^{-t^2}\,dt}##

Solution By the Product Rule and the Chain Rule,

$$G'(x)=(...)$$
$$ =2x\displaystyle\int_{-4}^{5x}{\,e^{-t^2}\,dt}+x^2\;e^{-(5x)^2}\,(5)$$

When I've seen this last written (5), I've thought in first place that I had to move backwards in the textbook. At last, I've understood it referred to the integral upper limit.

Question: I've spent a few hours trying to understand the footnote: the number we must multiply the second summatory by.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just avoid this note and show the result, without that step? Furthermore: isn't this step unclear?.

Greetings!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have some difficulties understanding your actual question. Do you mean "why has the author put the 5 in paranthesis instead of ##\cdot 5##"?
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes mcastillo356 and PeroK
mcastillo356 said:
Wouldn't it have been easier to just avoid this note and show the result, without that step? Furthermore: isn't this step unclear?.
Do you mean just write?
$$\dots \ +5x^2e^{-25x^2}$$
 
  • Like
Likes mcastillo356
PeroK said:
Do you mean just write?
$$\dots \ +5x^2e^{-25x^2}$$
Yes
 
malawi_glenn said:
I have some difficulties understanding your actual question. Do you mean "why has the author put the 5 in paranthesis instead of ##\cdot 5##"?
Yes. It was confusing to me that parenthesis. It made me think it refered to some forgotten content I had to revisit somewhere, some pages back on the textbook. Actually, isn't that "(5)", I mean, the act of writing this kind of note, meant to refer to already read contains?
 
Usually it is made clear that you have to refer to a previous equation numbered 5, with something like "by (5)" or a similar phrasing, and it is usually done in the text, not in the middle of the equation (and just dropping a reference to some previous formula in the middle of derivation without any explanatory words wouldn't make much sense anyway). You can see that the author used similar notation in the derivation in the next example:
##\begin{align}
H(x) &= \int_{0}^{x^3}{e^{-t^2}\,dt}-\int_{0}^{x^2}{e^{-t^2}\,dt}\nonumber\\
H'(x) &= e^{-(x^3)^2}(3x^2) - e^{-(x^2)^2}(2x) \nonumber\\
&= 3x^2\,e^{-x^6} - 2x\,e^{-x^4} \nonumber
\end{align}##
 
  • Informative
Likes mcastillo356
Thanks, PF! I can understand why did they write the note. I can turn the page.
Regards!
 
Dragon27 said:
##\begin{align}
H(x) &= \int_{0}^{x^3}{e^{-t^2}\,dt}-\int_{0}^{x^2}{e^{-t^2}\,dt}\nonumber\\
H'(x) &= e^{-(x^3)^2}(3x^2) - e^{-(x^2)^2}(2x) \nonumber\\
&= 3x^2\,e^{-x^6} - 2x\,e^{-x^4} \nonumber
\end{align}##
Hi, PF, the quoted example builds the Chain Rule into the first conclusion of the Fundamental Theorem:

$$\displaystyle\frac{d}{dx}\displaystyle\int_a^{g(x)}\,f(t)dt=f(g(x))g'(x)$$

The doubt is related, but different at the same time; the Chain Rule itself. I will quote Wikipedia ("Chain Rule" article):

In calculus, the chain rule is a formula that expresses the derivative of the composition of two differentiable functions ##f## and ##g## in terms of the derivatives of ##f## and ##g##. More precisely, if ##h=f\circ{g}## is the function such that ##h(x)=f(g(x))## for every ##x##, then the chain rule is, in Lagrange notation, $$h'(x)=f'(g(x))g'(x)$$.

Well... Just solved the doubt. It is in fact that the number ##e## is the unique positive real number such that ##\displaystyle\frac{d}{dx}\,e^t=e^t##. I mean that I thought that the function ##e^{-t^2}## had not been differentiated. Indeed, of course it is.

Now, the question is: am I on the track?. Is this an inteligible post?

Greetings!
 
Well, from the Chain rule:
$$\begin{align}
&h(x)=f(g(x))\nonumber\\
&h'(x)=f'(g(x))g'(x)\nonumber
\end{align}$$
in case of the integral (I've changed the notation to avoid confusion)
$$\displaystyle\frac{d}{dx}\displaystyle\int_a^{g_1(x)}\,f_1(t)dt$$
we have
$$\begin{align}
&g(x)=g_1(x)\nonumber\\
&f(x)=\int_a^{x}\,f_1(t)dt\nonumber
\end{align}$$
so that
$$\begin{align}
&f'(x)=f_1(x)\nonumber\\
&h(x)=f(g(x))=\int_a^{g_1(x)}\,f_1(t)dt\nonumber\\
&h'(x)=f'(g(x))g'(x)=f_1(g_1(x))g_1'(x)\nonumber
\end{align}$$
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes vanhees71, mcastillo356 and PeroK
  • #10
Hi, PF, @Dragon27, it's just brilliant, I mean the previous post. It really has captured the doubt, and solved it in a bright mathematical language.

Thanks a lot!
 
Back
Top