Definite integral of greatest integer function

In summary, the conversation discusses the integral of a function with the greatest integer function in its definition. The speakers question how the integral can still have a value of 0, even when one point in the interval has a non-zero measure. The expert explains that this is due to the use of infinitesimals, which is no longer used in integration theory.
  • #1
andyrk
658
5
Why is π/23π/2[cos-1t].dt = π/23π/2-1.dt?

[.] denotes the greatest integer function. Is it because [cos-1t] = -1 in t ∈ [π/2,3π/2)? But [cos-1t] = 0 for x = 3π/2. So we have one 0 along with all the -1's in (π/2,3π/2]. So how can we substitute [cos-1t] = -1 for every x in (π/2,3π/2] even though [cos-1t] = 0 at x = 3π/2?

Similarly, how can we substitute 3π/2[cos-1t].dt = 3π/20.dt even though [cos-1t] = 1 at x = 2π?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
andyrk said:
So how can we substitute [cos-1t] = -1 for every x in (π/2,3π/2] even though [cos-1t] = 0 at x = 3π/2?
Removing one point (end point) does not change the value of the integral.
 
  • #3
Svein said:
Removing one point (end point) does not change the value of the integral.
Why? The integral is made of infinitely small rectangular strips. If we remove one of those strips won't the area change? Or would it not?
 
  • #4
andyrk said:
If we remove one of those strips won't the area change?
The easiest way for me is to say "the measure of a single point is 0, so the measure of [0, 1] = the measure of [0, 1).
Another way: Let f(x)=1 for 0≤x<1 and f(1)=2. Then, obviously [itex] \int_{0}^{1-\frac{1}{n}}f(x)dx=1-\frac{1}{n}[/itex] for all n. Take it to the limit...
 
  • #5
Svein said:
The easiest way for me is to say "the measure of a single point is 0, so the measure of [0, 1] = the measure of [0, 1).
The measure of all single points is 0 except the last one.
 
  • #6
Anybody there?
 
  • #7
andyrk said:
The measure of all single points is 0 except the last one.
What's different about the "last one"?
 
  • #8
Svein said:
What's different about the "last one"?
That everything before the last one had area 0.dx. But the last one had area 1.dx
 
  • #9
andyrk said:
But the last one had area 1.dx
Sorry. Let us go back to my function and extend it, so that f(x)=1 for 0≤x<1 and f(x)=2 for 1≤x<2. This is by definition a step function, used to define Riemann integrals.For each step, the integral of the step function is (the value of the step function in that interval) times (the length of the interval). Observe that no "dx" is involved. Thus the integral of the step function f(x) over the interval [0, 1) is 1⋅1=1.

Now, if you really want to involve the point "1", observe that [itex] \int_{0}^{1+\frac{1}{n}}f(x)dx=1+\frac{2}{n}[/itex]. This is valid for all n. Since [itex][0, 1]=\bigcap_{n}[0, \frac{1}{n}] [/itex], the integral over [0, 1] is 1.
 
  • #10
Svein said:
[0,1]=⋂n[0,1n]
What is this notation? I didn't understand what this means.
 
  • #11
Svein said:
[0,1]=⋂n[0,1n]

What is this notation? I didn't understand it.
 
  • #12
andyrk said:
What is this notation? I didn't understand it.
Sorry, typo. It should be [itex][0, 1] = \bigcap_{n}[0, 1+\frac{1}{n}] [/itex] which means "the intersection of all intervals of type [0, 1 + 1/n]". Given ε>0, it is possible to find an N such that the integral value is less than 1 + ε (and ≥1) for all n>N.
andyrk said:
That everything before the last one had area 0.dx. But the last one had area 1.dx
Sorry. By "measure" we mean "the length of the interval". The interval [a, b] has measure b - a. Thus for a single point, say p, the interval [p, p] has length p - p = 0.
 
  • #13
Svein said:
Sorry, typo. It should be [itex][0, 1] = \bigcap_{n}[0, 1+\frac{1}{n}] [/itex] which means "the intersection of all intervals of type [0, 1 + 1/n]". Given ε>0, it is possible to find an N such that the integral value is less than 1 + ε (and ≥1) for all n>N.
Sorry. By "measure" we mean "the length of the interval". The interval [a, b] has measure b - a. Thus for a single point, say p, the interval [p, p] has length p - p = 0.
I think you are not getting what I am trying to say. The last point has the length of the interval dx and not 0. That's because we have divided the area under the curve in infinite strips of width dx each. So of those infinite strips, infinite -1 have area 0 and 1 strip has area 1.dx So why is the area of the whole interval comprising of infinite dx lengths still coming out to be 0? Is it because dx → 0, therefore 1.dx → 0? But then if this was not the case and f(x) would actually have some definite value which was not zero at all points in the interval (a,b], then shouldn't the area even then be 0? That's because the area would be f(a+dx).dx + f(a+2dx).dx + f(a+3dx).dx ... f(b).dx. Now since dx → 0, therefore all the terms like: f(a+dx).dx, f(a+2dx).dx, f(a+3dx).dx tend to zero too. So the area in the end should be 0. But clearly that is not the case. So why is that? What am I overlooking/missing?
 
  • #14
andyrk said:
I think you are not getting what I am trying to say. The last point has the length of the interval dx and not 0. That's because we have divided the area under the curve in infinite strips of width dx each. So of those infinite strips, infinite -1 have area 0 and 1 strip has area 1.dx So why is the area of the whole interval comprising of infinite dx lengths still coming out to be 0? Is it because dx → 0, therefore 1.dx → 0? But then if this was not the case and f(x) would actually have some definite value which was not zero at all points in the interval (a,b], then shouldn't the area even then be 0? That's because the area would be f(a+dx).dx + f(a+2dx).dx + f(a+3dx).dx ... f(b).dx. Now since dx → 0, therefore all the terms like: f(a+dx).dx, f(a+2dx).dx, f(a+3dx).dx tend to zero too. So the area in the end should be 0. But clearly that is not the case. So why is that? What am I overlooking/missing?
You are trying to reason using infinitesimals, which is very tricky, and therefore not used any more in integration theory. For a short introduction, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_integration.
 
  • #15
Svein said:
You are trying to reason using infinitesimals, which is very tricky, and therefore not used any more in integration theory. For a short introduction, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_integration.
So how would you explain why [cos-1t] was substituted as 0 all throughout? In fact, the question reduces down to: while computing definite integral with lower limit a and upper limit b, do we mean (a,b] or [a,b] or [a,b) or (a,b)?
 
Last edited:
  • #16
andyrk said:
So how would you explain why [cos-1t] was substituted as 0 all throughout?
This was your last integral. As I have explained, the measure of a single point is 0. Therefore, [cos-1t] is 0 almost everywhere (which means except for a set of measure 0) in the interval [3π/2, 2π].
 
  • #17
Svein said:
almost everywhere (which means except for a set of measure 0)
What does that mean? And please read post #15 again. I edited it a just a second ago.
 
  • #18
andyrk said:
What does that mean?
Exactly what it says.
andyrk said:
In fact, the question reduces down to: while computing definite integral with lower limit a and upper limit b, do we mean (a,b] or [a,b] or [a,b) or (a,b)?
It does not matter, since the difference between these are a set of measure 0. And please, read up on integration theory instead of asking the same questions again and again.
 
  • #19
Svein said:
Exactly what it says.
It does not matter, since the difference between these are a set of measure 0. And please, read up on integration theory instead of asking the same questions again and again.
I don't think I need to read the integration theory because what I am asking is just high school stuff. And the link you posted is way beyond the scope of knowledge required for high school. What does set of measure 0 mean?
 
  • #20
andyrk said:
What does set of measure 0 mean?
I explained it above (post #12).
 
  • #21
Svein said:
I explained it above (post #12).
The terminologies you are involving are way beyond the requirements of high school integration. For now I think I will go with the fact that integration happens over [a,b)
 

1. What is the definite integral of the greatest integer function?

The definite integral of the greatest integer function, denoted as ∫x [x], is a mathematical function that calculates the area under the curve of the greatest integer function between two given limits.

2. How is the definite integral of the greatest integer function different from other definite integrals?

The greatest integer function is a piecewise function, meaning it is defined differently for different intervals. This makes calculating the definite integral more complex compared to other functions with a single formula for integration.

3. Can the definite integral of the greatest integer function have negative values?

Yes, the definite integral of the greatest integer function can have negative values. This occurs when the function crosses the x-axis, resulting in an area below the x-axis, which is considered negative.

4. What is the domain and range of the definite integral of the greatest integer function?

The domain of the definite integral of the greatest integer function is the set of real numbers, while the range can include both positive and negative real numbers, depending on the limits of integration.

5. How is the definite integral of the greatest integer function used in real-world applications?

The greatest integer function is used to model scenarios where the quantity being measured can only take on discrete values, such as the number of items sold in a store or the number of people attending an event. The definite integral can then be used to calculate the total quantity over a given interval.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
306
  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
425
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top