Derivative of Integral: How to Use the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the derivative of the integral d/dx[∫0x(cos(xt)/t)dt] using the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC). Participants express confusion over the singularity at t=0, which complicates direct application of the FTC. It is suggested that the integral can be approached using limits to handle the singularity, and the Leibniz integral rule is mentioned as a more suitable method due to the x-dependence in the integrand. Some contributors note that while the differentiation formula is valid, the original integral does not converge at zero, highlighting the nuances of applying the FTC in this context. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the need for careful handling of singularities when differentiating integrals.
dumbQuestion
Messages
124
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




Find d/dx[∫0x(cos(xt)/t)dt] (just in case the notation is not clear, the differential with respect to x, of the definite integral from x to 0, of cos(xt) over t)

Homework Equations



My initial thought was just using the fundamental theorem of calculus

The Attempt at a Solution



Let I(t)=∫0x(cos(xt)/t)dt

Now, let f(t)=cos(xt)/t (the integrand) and let F(t) be an antiderivative of f(t) (a thought: f(t) is not defined at t=0, is this where I'm going wrong? Can I define F(t) to be an antiderivative? I mean, f(t) is not defined at t=0 but it's still integrable everywhere right?). Then by the fundamental theorem, I(t)=F(0)-F(x)

So now we can take d/dx of both sides

d/dx(I(t)) = d/dx[F(0) - F(x)]
d/dx[∫0x(cos(xt)/t)dt] = f(0) - f(x) (by FTC)
d/dx[∫0x(cos(xt)/t)dt] = cos(0)/0 - cos(x2)/x

In this step I can't proceed because I'm dividing by zero. If I try to take the limit f(t) as t --> 0 the denominator blows up and the whole thing goes to infinity, so this limit does not exist. So it seems like this is an improper integral? I'm confused.~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
However, the book gives as the answer (1/x)(1-2cos(x2)) and I don't believe they use the FTC. I can use their method to just find the integral but I would like to see how to use the FTC in this case
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
dumbQuestion said:

Homework Statement




Find d/dx[∫0x(cos(xt)/t)dt] (just in case the notation is not clear, the differential with respect to x, of the definite integral from x to 0, of cos(xt) over t)
Here's the LaTeX version of the integral. You can click what I wrote to see how I did it.

$$ \int_{t = x}^0 \frac{cos(xt) dt}{t}$$
dumbQuestion said:

Homework Equations



My initial thought was just using the fundamental theorem of calculus


The Attempt at a Solution



Let I(t)=∫0x(cos(xt)/t)dt

Now, let f(t)=cos(xt)/t (the integrand) and let F(t) be an antiderivative of f(t) (a thought: f(t) is not defined at t=0, is this where I'm going wrong? Can I define F(t) to be an antiderivative? I mean, f(t) is not defined at t=0 but it's still integrable everywhere right?). Then by the fundamental theorem, I(t)=F(0)-F(x)

So now we can take d/dx of both sides

d/dx(I(t)) = d/dx[F(0) - F(x)]
d/dx[∫0x(cos(xt)/t)dt] = f(0) - f(x) (by FTC)
d/dx[∫0x(cos(xt)/t)dt] = cos(0)/0 - cos(x2)/x

In this step I can't proceed because I'm dividing by zero. If I try to take the limit f(t) as t --> 0 the denominator blows up and the whole thing goes to infinity, so this limit does not exist. So it seems like this is an improper integral? I'm confused.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
However, the book gives as the answer (1/x)(1-2cos(x2)) and I don't believe they use the FTC. I can use their method to just find the integral but I would like to see how to use the FTC in this case

I would work with this integral, and take the limit of it as a approaches 0.
$$ \int_{t = x}^a \frac{cos(xt) dt}{t}$$

I haven't worked this through, but this is what I would try first.
 
Just as mark said up there ^ I believe you'll be able to use the squeeze theorem afterwards to clean up you problem.
 
Thanks guys. I am going to try this approach. Just out of curiosity, is there a reason I shouldn't apply the FTC in this problem? I mean, it appears its easier to do it this way that has been suggested to me in the responses, but is it still feasible to apply the FTC or is there a reason why that's not allowed in this case? I guess I'm asking, can I use the FTC when the integrand has a singularity at one of the end points of the interval I"m integrating over, or within the interval itself?
 
The FTC allows you to evaluate the integral at the endpoints. The endpoints themselves are the cause of the problem, not the process in which you got to evaluating the endpoints. So yes you can still use the FTC, just pull the endpoint out as a limit so you can evaluate the integral properly and then check the limit after you're done.
 
sorry for using attachment.I am working on my latex,hoping to be able to use it soon.
 

Attachments

  • 003.jpg
    003.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 405
dumbQuestion said:
Thanks guys. I am going to try this approach. Just out of curiosity, is there a reason I shouldn't apply the FTC in this problem? I mean, it appears its easier to do it this way that has been suggested to me in the responses, but is it still feasible to apply the FTC or is there a reason why that's not allowed in this case? I guess I'm asking, can I use the FTC when the integrand has a singularity at one of the end points of the interval I"m integrating over, or within the interval itself?

The complication that keeps you from simply using FTC is that you have x dependence in the integrand. You need to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_integral_rule
That will give you the book answer. That said, I think the exercise is a little silly since the integral does not exist for any nonzero value of x.
 
for x and a greater than a positive number,there is no singularity in the interval of integration
 
hedipaldi said:
for x and a greater than a positive number,there is no singularity in the interval of integration

That's if you do a cutoff at a then let a->0. That let's you get a derivative that exists but the original integral (the thing that you are taking the derivative of) still doesn't exist. You do this sort of thing in physics, but it seems a little odd here.
 
  • #10
FTC is precisely what you use here.
It's just that it uglifies, into Leibniz differentiation, due to its "essential" two-variable nature.
 
  • #11
this integral does converge,by Dirichle criterion.Examine uniform convergence for using Leibnitz formula.
 
  • #12
hedipaldi said:
this integral does converge,by Dirichle criterion.Examine uniform convergence for using Leibnitz formula.

I'm not sure I believe that. Put x=1. The resulting integral doesn't look convergent me by a simple comparison test.
 
  • #13
The general Leibnitz formula says that
\frac{d}{dx}\int_{\alpha(x)}^{\beta(x)} f(x, t)dt= \frac{d\beta(x)}{dx}f(x,\beta(x))- \frac{d\alpha(x)}{dx}f(x,\alpha(x))+ \int_{\alpha(x)}^{\beta(x)}\frac{\partial f(x,t)}{\partial x}dx
 
  • #14
It is, most definitely, convergent
 
  • #15
Thank you guys I am finding this discussing very useful and hedipaldi, thank you so much for taking the time to upload that document. This is all so appreciated by me!
 
  • #16
arildno said:
It is, most definitely, convergent

The formula for the derivative is convergent, if that's what you mean. The integral you are taking the derivative of isn't. Most definitely.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
yes,i agree.
 
  • #18
the initial integral converges al the infinity but not at 0,so the differentiation formula is valid only when the interval does not contain 0
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K