The proof my book gives for the 2nd part of the FTC is a little hard for me to understand, but I was wondering if this particular proof (which is not from my book) is valid. I did the proof myself, I'm just wondering if it's valid.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

[tex] \frac{d}{dx}\int^{x}_{0}f(t) \ dt = f(x) [/tex]

So suppose that the antiderivative of f(t) is F(t).

Then

[tex] \frac{d}{dx}\int^{x}_{0}f(t) \ dt = \frac{d}{dx}(F(x)-F(0)) = F'(x) = f(x) [/tex]

Is this a valid proof? IF not, where am I wrong?

Thanks for your time.

BiP

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Proof for part 2 of fundamental theorem of calculus

Loading...

Similar Threads - Proof part fundamental | Date |
---|---|

Misunderstanding part of Spivak's proof of second hard theorem? | Nov 2, 2013 |

Question about one part of the Ratio Test proof | Mar 15, 2012 |

Part of proof | Sep 11, 2010 |

Proof of Integer Parts of Real numbers | Jul 25, 2010 |

I understand deltas and epsilon proofs for the most part | Mar 21, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**