How to Derive an Integral Formula with an Infinite Upper Limit?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the integral formula involving the second derivative of an integral with an infinite upper limit. The equation presented is \frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}\int_x^{∞}f(x,z)g(z)dz = \int_x^{∞}f_{xx}(x,z)g(z)dz - g(x)(f_{z}(x,x) + 2f_{x}(x,x)) - f(x,x)g'(x). Participants emphasize the application of Leibniz's rule, particularly in handling the infinite limit, and suggest that differentiating the integral twice while considering the limits appropriately leads to the desired result. Concerns regarding the treatment of the upper limit as a constant are also discussed.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Leibniz's rule for differentiation under the integral sign
  • Familiarity with partial derivatives, specifically f_{x} and f_{z}
  • Knowledge of calculus, particularly integration techniques involving infinite limits
  • Ability to manipulate and interpret mathematical notation and expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the full statement and applications of Leibniz's rule in calculus
  • Explore techniques for handling integrals with infinite limits, including convergence criteria
  • Learn about the implications of differentiating under the integral sign in various contexts
  • Investigate the relationship between partial derivatives and integral calculus in more complex scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and researchers in mathematical analysis who are working with integrals involving infinite limits and differentiation techniques.

ehrenfestcq
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Please derive the right-hand side from the left. If anyone could shed some light on this I would be grateful.

[itex]\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}\int_x^{∞}f(x,z)g(z)dz = \int_x^{∞}f_{xx}(x,z)g(z)dz - g(x)(f_{z}(x,x) + 2f_{x}(x,x)) - f(x,x)g'(x)[/itex]

Please, if you can, provide a detailed explanation of your steps. An attempt I made at getting to the right-hand side of the equation was to consider a parameter α in [x,∞) and using this to
split the integral into two. Then apply the fundamental theorem of calculus to the one while assuming that the differentiation and integration may be interchanged freely on the other. Although, it seems at the end of this calculation one should set α=x and repeat the previous process to arrive at the final result after once again setting the new parameter equal to x. Setting the parameters that have been in [x,∞) to x, while seemingly valid since x is in this set, seems a bit peculiar. It seems as though this is only a trick to change the form of the integral to the right-hand side, this may be fine after all but I would be interested to hear if anyone has some suggestions about this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is pretty much a standard application of "Leibniz' rule" which is, itself, an extension of the fundamental theorem of Calculus as you suggest. The full statement of Leibniz' rule is
[tex]\frac{d}{dx}\int_{\alpha(x)}^{\beta(x)} f(x,t)dt= f(x, \beta(x))\frac{d\beta}{dx}- f(x, \alpha(x))\frac{d\alpha}{dx}+ \int_{\alpha}^{\beta}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dt[/tex]

Here, [itex]\beta(x)= \infty[/itex] and [itex]\alpha(x)= x[/itex] so that [itex]d\beta/dx=0[/itex], [itex]d\alpha/dx=1[/itex] so the first derivative is
[tex]-f(x,x)g(x)+ \int_x^\infty f_x g dx[/tex]

Now, use that same rule to differentiate again.
 
Thanks! Yes, I considered Leibniz's rule. What had thrown me off was the fact that the upper limit of integration is ∞. This appears to work just fine, although I am concerned with the notion that [itex]\frac{d∞}{dx}[/itex] should be zero. Might I instead handle this by integrating on [x,α] and then applying Leibniz's rule? With this, since α is not a function of x, [itex]\frac{dα}{dx}=0[/itex]. Then the first term on the right-hand side will vanish after which the limit as α tends to ∞ can be taken giving the desired result. Does this sound reasonable to you?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K