[(|f(x)|)^(-1)]*integral(|f(x)|dx) = [(f(x))^(-1)]*integral(f(x)dx)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coverband
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the equation [(|f(x)|)^(-1)]*integral(|f(x)|dx) = [(f(x))^(-1)]*integral(f(x)dx) and whether it holds true. Participants clarify that the integral's numerator is a number if definite, while it becomes a function if indefinite, complicating the comparison. A counter-example is presented, indicating that the equation does not generally hold true. The conversation also raises questions about the nature of integration—definite versus indefinite—and the implications of constants in antiderivatives. Ultimately, the consensus is that the original statement is incorrect.
coverband
Messages
170
Reaction score
1
I heard [(|f(x)|)^(-1)]*integral(|f(x)|dx) = [(f(x))^(-1)]*integral(f(x)dx)

(i.e. when dividing the integral of the absolute value of a function by the absolute value of the function, the absolute value signs cancel out)

Is this true

If so, how so?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Are these antiderivatives? If so, the presence of unknown constants are going to blow this whole thing out of the water. Regardless, let's pick an example

f(x) = x

\frac{ \int_{-a}^{a}|x|dx }{ |a| } = |a|
\frac{ \int_{-a}^{a} xdx } { a } = 0

Like that?
 
Basically is
(int|x|dx)/(|x|) = (intxdx)/( x )

and if so how?
 
Last edited:
First let's clear up the notation.
The numerator
\int f(x) \, dx
is a number, it does not depend on x. The denominator f(x) does.
Do you then claim that
\frac{ \int |f(y)| \, dy}{|x|} = \frac{\int f(y) \, dy}{x}
for all x?

Secondly, is the integration definite (e.g. implied over the whole domain) or indefinite (i.e. you need an arbitrary integration constant to be added)?

Finally, Office_Shredder has given a counter-example to what was supposedly your statement, so to answer your question: "No, basically it is not".
 
CompuChip said:
First let's clear up the notation.
The numerator
\int f(x) \, dx
is a number, it does not depend on x. The denominator f(x) does.
Do you then claim that
\frac{ \int |f(y)| \, dy}{|x|} = \frac{\int f(y) \, dy}{x}
for all x?

Secondly, is the integration definite (e.g. implied over the whole domain) or indefinite (i.e. you need an arbitrary integration constant to be added)?

Finally, Office_Shredder has given a counter-example to what was supposedly your statement, so to answer your question: "No, basically it is not".


first of all, why should the numerator be a "number" if the integral is indefinite, then it gives a function! only if the num was definite, would it be a number
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top