Integrating an inequality for two functions of the same variable

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 731016
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of an inequality involving two functions of the same variable, specifically examining the implications of integrating the derivatives of these functions. Participants are exploring whether the relationship between the derivatives can be used to infer a similar relationship between the original functions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to integrate both sides of an inequality and question the validity of their results. Some provide counterexamples to challenge the assumptions made in the original poster's reasoning. Others are exploring the implications of the fundamental theorem of calculus and the necessity of considering constants when evaluating antiderivatives.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing counterexamples and questioning the assumptions behind the integration process. Some guidance has been offered regarding the importance of constants in integration and the implications of the fundamental theorem of calculus. There is a recognition of the complexity of the problem, and multiple interpretations are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion regarding the original problem statement and the implications of their findings. There is mention of a specific counterexample that challenges the general case being considered, indicating a potential gap in the original reasoning.

member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this true or false problem,
1717372927804.png

The answer if false, however, I am confused by this result as my working shows that the is true.

My working is, integrating both sides of the inequality we get ##\int f'(x) dx> \int g'(x) dx## for all ##x \in (a,b)## which is the equivalent to ##f(x) > g(x)## for all ##x \in (a,b)##.

Does someone please know what I have done wrong?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChiralSuperfields said:
For this true or false problem,
View attachment 346371
The answer if false, however, I am confused by this result as my working shows that the is true.
Counterexample: ##f(x)=-e^{-x}## and ##g(x)=1##. Then for all ##x##: ##f'(x)>g'(x)## but ##f(x)<g(x)##.
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
renormalize said:
Counterexample: ##f(x)=-e^{-x}## and ##g(x)=1##. Then for all ##x##: ##f'(x)>g'(x)## but ##f(x)<g(x)##.
Thank you for your reply @renormalize!

Sorry I am tying to generalize this without considering specific counter examples. I am trying to consider the most general case, this is why I integrate.

Thanks!
 
ChiralSuperfields said:
Sorry I am tying to generalize this without considering specific counter examples. I am trying to consider the most general case, this is why I integrate.
But this single counterexample is sufficient to show that your "general case" cannot be proven. Hence statement 6 is False, with no further work needed.
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
renormalize said:
But this single counterexample is sufficient to show that your "general case" cannot be proven. Hence statement 6 is False, with no further work needed.
Thank you for your reply @renormalize !

Sorry I am still confused. I integrated the inequality and obeyed the laws of algebra and my integration still worked. I'm not sure what is going on, I think maybe the question is wrong.

Thanks!
 
ChiralSuperfields said:
Thank you for your reply @renormalize!

Sorry I am tying to generalize this without considering specific counter examples. I am trying to consider the most general case, this is why I integrate.

Thanks!
You can take the counterexample and put it in your chain of arguments to see at which step it fails. You can also use - which is what I do first - the fundamental theorem of calculus, either for the entire interval ##(a,b)## or for ##(a,x).##
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
ChiralSuperfields said:
I'm not sure what is going on, I think maybe the question is wrong.
Don't forget about that sneaky constant that you should add when you evaluate an antiderivative.
If ##f' > g'## on (a,b), then what can you say about comparing ##\int {f'} + c_1## to ##\int {g'} + c_2##?
In other words, does the slope of ##f## being larger mean that the value of ##f## will be larger? Compare f(x)=2x with g(x)=x+1000 on (0,1).
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: Mark44, member 731016 and fresh_42
FactChecker said:
Don't forget about that sneaky constant that you should add when you evaluate an antiderivative.
If ##f' > g'## on (a,b), then what can you say about comparing ##\int {f'} + c_1## to ##\int {g'} + c_2##?
In other words, does the slope of ##f## being larger mean that the value of ##f## will be larger? Compare f(x)=2x with g(x)=x+1000 on (0,1).
That's why I like FTC as a first test. It forces you to use the constants and can help to see where a general argument might fail.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: member 731016 and FactChecker
##\int (f-g)'>c> 0 ##
It would work if we had ##\int f'-g' =0 ##, with an equality at some value ##x,## so that ##f(x)=g(x)##, i.e., if they're equal at some point and grow at the same rate . Like Fact Checker mentioned, said, one just grows faster than the other, but you don't have additional knowledge of initial conditions. This is a sort of PDE without additional conditions and an inequality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: member 731016 and FactChecker
  • #10
The following inequality is true: if f(x) \leq g(x) on [a,b] then <br /> \int_a^b f(x)\,dx \leq \int_a^b g(x)\,dx. (We can replace the upper limits with an aarbitrary t \in [a,b].) Replacing f and g by derivatives and using the fundamental theorem, this implies <br /> \forall x \in [a,b] : f&#039;(x) \leq g&#039;(x) \quad \Rightarrow \quad \forall x \in [a,b] : f(x) - f(a) \leq g(x) - g(a). What this is saying is that if f increases more slowly than g and they start in the same place, then f will be less than g.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: member 731016 and FactChecker

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
2K