How is U(x) integrable if it doesn't have an antiderivative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pc2-brazil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Antiderivative
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves the function U(x), defined piecewise, and the inquiry into its integrability despite the claim that it lacks an antiderivative over the entire real line. Participants are tasked with exploring the implications of U(x)'s discontinuity and its relationship to integrability and the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the nature of U(x) and its potential antiderivative, with one suggesting that if an antiderivative exists, it must behave differently on either side of the discontinuity at x=0. Others question the validity of using the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in this context and raise examples of other discontinuous functions that are integrable.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with some participants confirming the correctness of certain proofs while others express uncertainty about the implications of discontinuity on integrability. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, particularly regarding the relationship between antiderivatives and integrability.

Contextual Notes

There is a suggestion in the original post that assumes the existence of an antiderivative leads to a contradiction, which some participants have not fully engaged with. The discussion also reflects differing opinions on the application of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus to this scenario.

pc2-brazil
Messages
198
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



Show that the function U(x) defined by
[tex]U(x)=\begin{cases}<br /> 0 & \text{ if } x<0 \\ <br /> 1 & \text{ if } x\geq0 <br /> \end{cases}[/tex]
has not an antiderivative in (-∞, +∞).
(Suggestion: Assume U has an antiderivative F in (-∞, +∞) and obtain a contradiction, showing that this contradiction follows from the mean value theorem, according to which there is a number K such that F(x) = x + K if x > 0, and F(x) = K if x < 0).

2. The attempt at a solution

I guess that, if there is an antiderivative for this function, it would have to be some constant C1 for x < 0, and x + C2 for x ≥ 0.
If there is a function F(x) whose derivative is U(x) in (-∞, +∞), then F(x) must be differentiable at all points. So, at any particular value of x, the one-sided derivative coming from the left must be equal to the one-sided derivative coming from the right. But, at x = 0, the one-sided derivatives of F(x) are, from the definition of U(x), 0 (coming from the left) and 1 (coming from the right). The derivative of F(x) doesn't exist at x = 0, so U(x) can't be the derivative of F(x).
I'm not sure whether this is correct, but I didn't use the suggestion. I don't know exactly what this suggestion is asking me to do.

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
U(x) is discontinuous at x=0 and therefore by the Fundemental Theorem of Integral Calculus, U(x) is not integrable.
 
Hariraumurthy said:
U(x) is discontinuous at x=0 and therefore by the Fundemental Theorem of Integral Calculus, U(x) is not integrable.

Firstly, the fundamental theorem of calculus has nothing to do with this.

Secondly, your claim is wrong. The function [itex]2x\sin(1/x)-\cos(1/x)[/itex] (and which attains 0 in 0) is discontinuous in 0. But it is integrable, and it has an antiderivative: [itex]x^2\sin(1/x)[/itex].

To pc2-brazil. Your proof seems to be correct. :smile:
 
micromass said:
Firstly, the fundamental theorem of calculus has nothing to do with this.

Secondly, your claim is wrong. The function [itex]2x\sin(1/x)-\cos(1/x)[/itex] (and which attains 0 in 0) is discontinuous in 0. But it is integrable, and it has an antiderivative: [itex]x^2\sin(1/x)[/itex].

To pc2-brazil. Your proof seems to be correct. :smile:

Thank you for confirming it.
I hadn't noticed that a new answer had appeared. I was just about to send another question here arguing that U(x) is, indeed, integrable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K