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
pc2-brazil
Messages
198
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



Show that the function U(x) defined by
U(x)=\begin{cases}<br /> 0 &amp; \text{ if } x&lt;0 \\ <br /> 1 &amp; \text{ if } x\geq0 <br /> \end{cases}
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 2x\sin(1/x)-\cos(1/x) (and which attains 0 in 0) is discontinuous in 0. But it is integrable, and it has an antiderivative: x^2\sin(1/x).

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 2x\sin(1/x)-\cos(1/x) (and which attains 0 in 0) is discontinuous in 0. But it is integrable, and it has an antiderivative: x^2\sin(1/x).

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.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top