Integral Suppose f(x)=int(1/t.dt)

  • Thread starter Thread starter iceman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the integral function f(x) defined as the integral of 1/t from 1 to x. Participants explore the relationship f(x) + f(y) = f(xy) for x, y > 0 without directly evaluating the integral. A substitution s = xt is suggested to help demonstrate this property. The conversation includes differentiation of the equation to show that the two sides can only differ by a constant, which is ultimately shown to be zero by evaluating specific cases. The integral f(x) is recognized as representing the natural logarithm, emphasizing the cleverness of the substitution method used.
iceman
Hello everyone, this one might seem easy to you but it's driving me insane.

Q) Suppose f(x)=int(1/t.dt)
where the upper limit=x, lower limit=1 ; for x>0.

Without evaluating the integral show that
for any x,y>0, f(x)+f(y)=f(xy).
where you may consider a substitution s=xt in the left-hand side.

Thanks for your help in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I don't know what you mean by "consider the substitution," but the best I can do anyway is show that the most they differ by is a constant. I at first assumed you didn't want me to differentiate either so I tried separating the integrals (for instance, instead of from 1 to y, I tried 1 to x plus x to y) but I'm not sure that helped.
If you differentiate f(x)+f(y)=f(xy)
you get
1/x*x' + 1/y*y'=1/(xy)(x'y+y'x)=1/x*x'+1/y*y'
where x' and y' are the derivatives of x and y with respect to t.
So since the derivatives are equal, they can only differ by a constant.
To show that C=0, you could pick some values of x and y. I wanted to stay somewhat general, so I picked x=y. It boils down to showing that
2*S(1/t)dt=S(1/t)dt
if the limits on the left are 1 and x
and on the right 1 and x2
 
Last edited:
int(1,x)dt/t=int(y,xy)ds/s, where s=yt.
However, s is dummy. Therefore
int(1,x)dt/t + int(1,y)dt/t = int(1,xy)dt/t
 
mathman, I'd be interested in seeing a little more work (so I can understand what you did), if you don't mind.
 
You will FIRST need to show that f(1/x)= -f(x):
f(1/x)= int (t=1 to 1/x) 1/t dt.

Let u= xt so that t= u/x. Then dt= du/x and 1/t= x/u so that
(1/t) dt= (x/u)du/x= (1/u) du. When t= 1, u= x and when t= 1/x,
u= x(1/x)= 1. The integral becomes int(from u= x to u= 1)(1/u)du
which is -int (from u=1 to u= x)(1/u)du= -f(x).

Now, f(xy)= int (t=1 to xy) 1/t dt.

Let u= t/x so that t= xu. Then dt= xdu and 1/t= 1/(xu) so that
(1/t)dt= (1/(xu))(xdu)= (1/u)du. When t= 1, u= 1/x and when t= xy,
u= y so the integral becomes int (from u= 1/x to y)(1/u)du
= int (from u= 1/x to 1)(1/u)du+ int (from u= 1 to y) (1/u)du
= -int (from u= 1 to 1/x)(1/u)du+ int (from u= 1 to y) (1/u)du
= -(-f(x))+ f(y)= f(x) + f(y).

f(x)= int(from t=1 to t= x)(1/t)dt is actually a fairly standard definition of ln(x).
 
So essentially the idea is to make a substitution for t that will preserve the integrand but change the limits. Very clever.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top