Proof of a (simple) integro-differential formula

  • Thread starter Thread starter TeacupPig
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Proof
TeacupPig
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I'm working through a paper and trying to prove the following (dear god... )
\frac{d}{dt}\int_0^t e^{\alpha (t-x)}f(x)dx = f(t) + \alpha\int_0^t e^{\alpha (t-x)}f(x)dx
I have tried three different ways, either by direct manipulations (integration by parts maybe?), or by using the definition of the derivative and taking the limit (should work, but I'm not even getting close), and by switching the order of integration-differentiation (not going to work).

If you manage to show it, please give me some intermediate results or a complete solution if it's short...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TeacupPig said:
I'm working through a paper and trying to prove the following (dear god... )
\frac{d}{dt}\int_0^t e^{\alpha (t-x)}f(x)dx = f(t) + \alpha\int_0^t e^{\alpha (t-x)}f(x)dx
I have tried three different ways, either by direct manipulations (integration by parts maybe?), or by using the definition of the derivative and taking the limit (should work, but I'm not even getting close), and by switching the order of integration-differentiation (not going to work).

If you manage to show it, please give me some hints or a complete solution if it's short...
Try the Leibniz integral rule. Link for Wikipedia article.
 
Thank you very much, the problem is solved by straightforwardly applying this general version of the Leibniz formula.
When walking home I had even thought about it for a brief moment, but I have never seen it before in this form with variable limits (which is what I need).
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top