Is Integral Equality Paradox Possible in Mathematics?

In summary: Well his username was eljose. You can search for posts by him. Let's just say he was a genius on the level of gauss, and solved multiple millennium prize problems but the mathematical community kept holding him down because they didn't appreciate proper mathematics.The snobbish mathematical community, I think you'll find, who only let famous people publish in journals.Oh, I see. That's quite a story. Thanks for the info. :)In summary, if the integral over (a,b) of f(x) and g(x) exist separately and \int_{a}^{b}dx(f(x)-g(x)) =0, it does not necessarily imply that f(x) = g(x) + h'(x
  • #1
Klaus_Hoffmann
86
1
if we have that:

[tex] \int_{a}^{b}dxf(x) - \int_{a}^{b}dxg(x)= \int_{a}^{b}dx(f(x)-g(x)) [/tex]

where the integral over (a,b) of f(x) and g(x) exist separately then my question is if

[tex] \int_{a}^{b}dx(f(x)-g(x)) =0 [/tex] then

does this imply necessarily that [tex] f(x)=g(x)+h'(x) [/tex]

where h(a)=h(b)=0 and its derivative is 0 almost everywhere on the interval (a,b)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
We have that [tex]\int^b_a f(x) dx = \int^b_a g(x) dx[/tex] and from that condition you ask if that implies [itex]f(x) = g(x) \in [b,a][/itex](Neglecting small value of h'(x) you proposed, i know don't why you did, though it doesn't end up making a difference). As a simple counter example, f(x) and g(x) may be very different Odd functions, and the integral of these two between b and -b will be 0.
 
  • #3
Klaus_Hoffmann said:
if we have that:

[tex] \int_{a}^{b}dxf(x) - \int_{a}^{b}dxg(x)= \int_{a}^{b}dx(f(x)-g(x)) [/tex]

where the integral over (a,b) of f(x) and g(x) exist separately then my question is if

[tex] \int_{a}^{b}dx(f(x)-g(x)) =0 [/tex] then

does this imply necessarily that [tex] f(x)=g(x)+h'(x) [/tex]

where h(a)=h(b)=0

No, this is not correct, you just need that h(a) = h(b), since:

[tex]\int_a ^ b f(x) dx - \int_a ^ b g(x) dx = \int_a ^ b \left( f(x) - g(x) \right) dx = \int_a ^ b \left( g(x) + h'(x) - g(x) \right) dx[/tex]

[tex]= \int_a ^ b h'(x) dx = \left. h(x) \right|_a ^ b = h(b) - h(a)[/tex]

Now, if h(a) = h(b), then we'll have: [tex]\int_a ^ b f(x) dx - \int_a ^ b g(x) dx = 0[/tex]

and its derivative is 0 almost everywhere on the interval (a,b)

No, why should it's derivative is 0? =.="
 
  • #4
Are you sure that worked out right VietDao29 >.<? He asks if [tex] \int^b_a f(x) dx = \int^b_a g(x) dx[/tex] then does that imply f(x) = g(x) + h'(x), where h(a)=h(b)=0. It seems from your post you assumed f(x)=g(x) + h'(x), to get that all we need is h(a)=h(b), but that is somewhat the converse of what he is asking I think >.<
 
  • #5
He also said h'=o a.e.
 
  • #6
Gib Z said:
Are you sure that worked out right VietDao29 >.<? He asks if [tex] \int^b_a f(x) dx = \int^b_a g(x) dx[/tex] then does that imply f(x) = g(x) + h'(x), where h(a)=h(b)=0. It seems from your post you assumed f(x)=g(x) + h'(x), to get that all we need is h(a)=h(b), but that is somewhat the converse of what he is asking I think >.<

I was pointing out that his claim that h(a) = h(b) = 0 is wrong, and it's even wronger, when he said that h' = 0.

You can find h'(x) simply by subtracting f(x) from g(x).

Say, we have:
[tex]\int_0 ^ \frac{\pi}{2} \sin x = \int_0 ^ \frac{\pi}{2} \cos x = 1[/tex]

We also have:
[tex]\sin x = \cos x + (\sin x - \cos x)[/tex]

So h'(x) = sin(x) - cos(x)
Integrate it with respect to x, we have:
h(x) = -cos(x) - sin(x) + C

[tex]h(0) = -1 + C[/tex]

[tex]h \left( \frac{\pi}{2} \right) = -1 + C[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow h(0) = h \left( \frac{\pi}{2} \right)[/tex] (but not equal to 0, unless C = 1)

However, h(0) = h(pi/ 2) does not imply that h'(x) = 0 on the interval (0; pi/2).

So, in conclusion, both of his assertions (?, can I use plural here) are wrong. =.="
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Ok we'll good we agree on that :) Pretty pointless though, "Klaus" never comes back to his threads when he's proven wrong, and matt grime reckons its some other guy named Jose whose not good >.<
 
  • #8
ok,.. thank you i fooled myself once again.
 
  • #9
Gib Z said:
Ok we'll good we agree on that :) Pretty pointless though, "Klaus" never comes back to his threads when he's proven wrong, and matt grime reckons its some other guy named Jose whose not good >.<

Well, he did come back. :rolleyes: o:) ^.^
 
  • #10
If he is Jose he's calmed down a lot. Which is annoying actually, because jose was crazy enough to be funny, where as this person is simply obnoxious.
 
  • #11
DeadWolfe said:
If he is Jose he's calmed down a lot. Which is annoying actually, because jose was crazy enough to be funny, where as this person is simply obnoxious.

Well, it must be some of my missing days here, at PF, but who's the well-known Jose that you guys are talking about? I don't think I know anyone named Jose. :cry: And, btw, what has he done to make him this famous?
 
  • #12
Well his username was eljose. You can search for posts by him. Let's just say he was a genius on the level of gauss, and solved multiple millennium prize problems but the mathematical community kept holding him down because they didn't appreciate proper mathematics.
 
  • #13
The snobbish mathematical community, I think you'll find, who only let famous people publish in journals.
 

1. What is the integral equality paradox?

The integral equality paradox, also known as the "equal areas paradox," is a mathematical concept that states that two different shapes can have the same area, but one of them can have a longer perimeter than the other.

2. How is the integral equality paradox possible?

This paradox is possible because the calculation of area and perimeter use different mathematical operations. While the area is calculated by integrating the function, the perimeter is calculated by differentiating the function. This can result in two seemingly different shapes having the same area but different perimeters.

3. Can you provide an example of the integral equality paradox?

One classic example of the integral equality paradox is the Koch snowflake. This shape has a finite area, but its perimeter is infinitely long. This means that it can have the same area as a regular triangle, but its perimeter is longer.

4. What are the real-world implications of the integral equality paradox?

While the integral equality paradox may seem like an abstract mathematical concept, it has real-world implications in fields such as engineering and physics. It highlights the importance of considering both area and perimeter in calculations and can help us understand the limitations of mathematical models.

5. Is there a resolution to the integral equality paradox?

There is no definitive resolution to the integral equality paradox, as it is a fundamental mathematical concept. However, it can be better understood by considering the different operations used to calculate area and perimeter and their limitations. It also highlights the importance of careful consideration and analysis in mathematical problem-solving.

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
938
  • Calculus
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
353
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
752
  • Calculus
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top