How Do You Differentiate an Integral with a Time-Dependent Upper Limit?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter moo5003
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrals
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiation of an integral with a time-dependent upper limit, specifically focusing on the application of Leibniz's rule. Participants explore the mathematical intricacies involved in differentiating expressions that include integrals and exponential functions, without changing variables.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to differentiate the expression involving an integral and an exponential function directly, expressing uncertainty about the differentiation of the integral itself.
  • Another participant points out that the differentiation of an exponential function does not simplify to the exponential of the derivative of its argument, suggesting a need for careful application of differentiation rules.
  • There is a suggestion to apply Leibniz's rule for differentiating the integral, with a participant questioning whether continuity of the function affects the ability to differentiate under the integral sign.
  • A later reply attempts to apply Leibniz's rule and presents a formulation for the differentiation of the integral, while also assuming continuity over the relevant region.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct approach to differentiate the integral. There are competing views on the application of Leibniz's rule and the conditions under which it can be applied.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the continuity of the functions involved and how this may impact the differentiation process. There are also unresolved mathematical steps in the application of Leibniz's rule.

moo5003
Messages
202
Reaction score
0
How would you differntiate the following type of formula:


d/dt [ e^(Integral from 0 to t [v(x+s,t-s) ds])f(x+t)]


Note: I don't want to change variables, I know I can make it nicer but I would like to know how to do it directly.



So far:

= e^(d/dt[integral from 0 to t(v(x+s,t-s)ds)]) * f(x+t) + e^(integral from 0 to t[v(x+s,t-s)ds]) * d/dt(f(x+t))

So I really just need help doing:

d/dt [ Integral from 0 to t (v(x+s,t-s)ds)]

= v(x+s,t-s) right? I'm not sure about this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Er,

[tex]\frac{d}{dx} e^{u(x)} \neq e^{\frac{d}{dx} u(x)[/tex]

(usually)
 
moo5003 said:
So I really just need help doing:

d/dt [ Integral from 0 to t (v(x+s,t-s)ds)]

= v(x+s,t-s) right? I'm not sure about this.
Nope. Apply Leibniz's rule. Or derive it yourself by using limits.
 
Hurkyl said:
Er,

[tex]\frac{d}{dx} e^{u(x)} \neq e^{\frac{d}{dx} u(x)[/tex]

(usually)

True, though I still need to find out d/dx[u(x)] or in my case what I listed above. Since d/dt(e^u(x,t)) = d/dt[u(x,t)]e^u(x,t)


Leibniz's rule:

Since I'm unsure v or d/dt are continuous on over the region does that mean I cannot pass the differentiation?

Or can I still use:

d/dt[Integral from a to b(f(x,t)dx)] =

Integral from a to b[d/dt(f(x,t)dx)] + f(b,t)db/dt - f(a,t)da/dt
 
Last edited:
So, I think I did it but I'm unsure and I would like you guys to confirm it if possible.

d/dt[ int 0 to t ( V(x+s,t-s)ds )
=
Int 0 to t [ d/dt ( v(x+s,t-s) ) ] + v(x+t, 0)dt/dt - v(x,t)d0/dt
=
Into 0 to t [ d/dt ( v(x+s,t-s) ) + v(x+t,0)

Assuming continuity over the region
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K