Integration is the inverse process of differentiation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between integration and differentiation, specifically exploring why antiderivatives relate to the area under a curve. Participants delve into the definitions and interpretations of definite integrals and antiderivatives, examining the fundamental theorem of calculus and the geometric implications of integration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that while integration is the inverse of differentiation, it is the definite integral that provides the area under the curve, not the antiderivative itself.
  • One participant emphasizes the construction of the Riemann integral and how it relates to the evaluation of antiderivatives to find areas.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on why the inverse operation of differentiation results in a function that yields the area under the curve.
  • Some contributions discuss the geometric interpretation of integration as the sum of areas of rectangles, linking this to the definition of the integral.
  • Participants reference the fundamental theorem of calculus, stating that it connects the concepts of differentiation and integration, but there is a focus on the distinction between antiderivatives and area calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the definite integral is responsible for calculating the area under the curve, while there is contention regarding the role of antiderivatives in this context. The discussion remains unresolved as participants express differing views on the relationship between these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the clarity of their questions and the explanations provided, indicating potential limitations in understanding the nuances of the fundamental theorem of calculus and its implications for area calculations.

JinM
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,
I know that integration is the inverse process of differentiation, and that the definite integral is defined as:
[itex]\int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx = \lim_{n \to \infty} \sum^{n}_{i = 1} f(x_i) \Delta x[/itex]
assuming that the integrand is defined over the interval [a,b].

My question is: Why is it that the antiderivatives give the area under the curve? For example:

[itex]\int \frac{1}{1+x^2} dx = \arctan{x} + C[/itex]

How does arctan give the area under curve of the integrand between a and b?

Thanks and much appreciated,
JinM
 
Physics news on Phys.org


JinM said:
My question is: Why is it that the antiderivatives give the area under the curve?
Strictly speaking, the antiderivative doesn't give you the area under the curve. It's the definite integral that does. The reason for this lies in the way the integral is constructed.
 


morphism said:
Strictly speaking, the antiderivative doesn't give you the area under the curve. It's the definite integral that does. The reason for this lies in the way the integral is constructed.
But you know the point I'm trying to express. Let F(x) be the antiderivative of f(x). To find the area under the curve of f(x) between a and b, we evaluate: F(b)-F(a). Why?

I want to see how evaluating the antiderivative gives you the area under the curve.
 


The key to seeing that is a good understanding of how the Riemann integral is constructed, via partitions and rectangles, etc. and an appreciation of what the mean value theorem really says.

If you let {a=x_0 < x_1 < ... < x_n=b} be a partition of [a,b], then

[tex]F(b) - F(a) = F(x_n) - F(x_0) = \sum_{i=1}^n F(x_i) - F(x_{i-1}).[/tex]

Now apply the mean value theorem to get a c_i in each partition [xi-1, xi] such that

[tex]F(x_i) - F(x_{i-1}) = F'(c_i) (x_i - x_{i-1}) = f(c_i) \Delta x_i.[/tex]

If we plug this back into the original equation, we get that

[tex]F(b) - F(a) = \sum_{i=1}^n f(c_i) \Delta x_i.[/tex]

And 'letting n tend to infinity' will now yield

[tex]F(b)-F(a) = \int_a^b f(x) dx.[/tex]
 


Thanks for your help so far.

I'm sorry, but I may not have been clear with my question; I'm not a good expositor. :l

I understand how the Riemann integral is constructed. I want to know why the inverse operation of differentiation gives you the function that yields the area under the curve.
 


But.. I just showed you why!
 


An anti-derivative is not the area under the curve. An integral is. That being said, the area under the curve is the geometric interpretation. The best way to see it is to look at the definition of the integral itself. Sf(x)dx means sum of f(x) which is the y value, times dx which is the delta x segments on the x axis. This means, height (y value) * base (dx) which is the area of a rectangle. the S is the sum of all the rectangles. The fundamental theorem of calculus is the algebraic interpretation, the "getting back from the derivative".
 


The fundamental theorem of calculus:
If dF/dx= f(x), then [tex]\int f(x)dx= F(b)- F(a) <br /> <br /> and<br /> If [itex]F(x)= \int_a^x f(t)dt[/itex], then dF/dx= f(x)<br /> <br /> One way to show that is this: If y= f(x)> 0, between x= a and x= b, then we can identify (or <b>define</b>) [tex]\int_a^x f(t)dt[/itex] as "the area of the region bounded by the graphs of y= f(x), y= 0, x= a, and x= b". <br /> <br /> Given any x<sub>0</sub>, [itex]F(x_0)= \int_a^{x_0} f(t)dt[/itex] is the area under the curve from a to x<sub>0</sub> and, for any h> 0, [itex]F(x+h)= \int_a^{x_0+ h}f(t)dt[/itex] is the area under the curve from a to x<sub>0</sub>+ h. The difference, F(x<sub>0</sub>+ h)- F(x<sub>0</sub>) is the area under the curve from x<sub>0</sub> to x<sub>0</sub>+ h.<br /> <br /> Suppose f(x<sub>*</sub>) is the minimum value for f on that interval, x<sub>0</sub> to x<sub>0</sub>+ h. Then clearly the rectangle with base h and height f(x<sub>*</sub>) is completely contained in that region. Suppose f(x<sup>*</sup>) is the maximum value for f on that interval, then the rectangle with base h and height f(x<sup>*</sup>) contains that region. In terms of area, [itex]hf(x_*)\le \int_{x_0}^{x_0+ h} f(x) dx\le hf(x^*)[/itex]. Dividing by h,<br /> [tex]f(x_*)\le \frac{\int_{x_0}^{x_0+ h} f(t)dt}{h}\le f(x^*)[/tex]<br /> but the area between x<sub>0</sub> and x<sub>0</sub>+ h is just the area from a to x<sub>0</sub> minus the area from a to x<sub>0</sub>. That is:<br /> [tex]f(x_*)\le \frac{F(x+h)- F(x_0)}{h}\le f(x^*)[/tex]<br /> <br /> <br /> Now take the limit a h-> 0. Since x<sub>0</sub>+ h goes to x<sub>0</sub>, and both x<sub>*</sub> and x<sup>*[/sub] lie between them, both x<sub>*</sub> and x<sup>*</sup> go to x<sub>0</sub> so <br /> [tex]f(x_0)\le \frac{dF}{dx}(x_0)\le f(x_0)[/itex]<br /> That is, dF/dx evaluated at x=x<sub>0</sub>, is just f(x<sub>0</sub>).[/tex]</sup>[/tex][/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K