Differentiating an integral wrt a function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around differentiating the integral $\int _S f \ln f$ with respect to the function $f$. Participants explore the interpretation of the integral, the differentiation process, and the implications of the notation used. The conversation includes technical reasoning and clarifications related to functional forms and notation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant interprets the integral as $\int _S f(x) \ln f(x)dx$ and suggests that the derivative is $\ln f(x)$.
  • Another participant proposes that the integral should be written as $\int _S^f \ln f df$ and discusses the differentiation of this form, leading to the same result of $\ln f$.
  • A later participant introduces a more complex functional $J(f)$ involving a concave function and differentiates it with respect to $f(x)$, yielding a more elaborate expression that includes terms like $-\ln f(x) - 1 + \lambda_0 + \sum_k \lambda_k r_k(x)$.
  • One participant questions the notation and suggests that $f$ might not be a function but rather an element of a convex set, leading to confusion about the interpretation of the integral.
  • There is uncertainty about the boundaries of the integrals and the meaning of $f(x)$ as the xth component of $f$.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the integral and its differentiation, with no consensus reached on the correct notation or meaning of the terms involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the clarity of the notation and the implications of the functional forms presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of specified boundaries for the integrals and the potential need for clarification of the symbols and notation used in the original problem statement. There is also ambiguity regarding whether $f$ is a function or an element of a convex set.

OhMyMarkov
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone!

I've came across this problem: differentiate $\int _S f \ln f$ with respect to $f$. From previous explanation, I believe $\int _S f \ln f$ means $\int _S f(x) \ln f(x)dx$.

The answer is $\ln f(x)$... Could anyone indicate how they reached this answer?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OhMyMarkov said:
Hello everyone!

I've came across this problem: differentiate $\int _S f \ln f$ with respect to $f$. From previous explanation, I believe $\int _S f \ln f$ means $\int _S f(x) \ln f(x)dx$.

The answer is $\ln f(x)$... Could anyone indicate how they reached this answer?

Thanks!

Hi OhMyMarkov! :)

I suspect that should read $\int _S^f \ln f df$.

Suppose the anti-derivative of ln(x) is LN(x), then it follows that:

$\frac{d}{df}(\int _S^f \ln f df) = \frac{d}{df}(\int _S^f \ln x dx) = \frac{d}{df}(LN( f ) - LN( S )) = \ln f$
 
Hello ILikeSerena, thanks for replying!

Okay, now I have the book, please let me give out the exact statement:

$h(f )$ is a concave function over a convex set. We form the functional:

\begin{equation}
\displaystyle J(f )= -\int f\ln f + \lambda _0 \int f + \sum _k \lambda _k \int f r_k
\end{equation}

and "differentiate" with respect to $f(x)$, the $x$th component of $f$, to obtain

\begin{equation}
\displaystyle \frac{\partial J}{\partial f(x)} = -\ln f(x) -1 +\lambda _0 + \sum _k \lambda _k r_k (x)
\end{equation}

Perhaps the problem statement is now clearer...
 
Hmm, things certainly have changed.

I'm looking at what is some unconventional notation.
Perhaps you can clarify some of it, because I'm guessing a little bit too much.
Your book should define the symbols and notation used somewhere, typically at the beginning of the chapter or the introduction of the book.

From h(f) is a concave function on a convex set, I deduce that f is an element of a convex set.
That suggests that f is not a function, but for instance an element of R^n.
Is it, or could it be a function?

Looking at the results, it appears that $\int f \ln f$ means $\int df \ln f$, that is ln f integrated with respect to f.
Could that be it?
In that case everything appears to work out, except for the "-1"...

For the integrals no boundary is specified.
But the calculation suggests a constant lower bound, perhaps minus infinity, and an upper bound of f, or something like that...?

Can you clarify what f(x), the xth component of f is supposed to mean?
 

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K