Prove Intergal Question Without Calculating Integral

  • Thread starter Thread starter daniel_i_l
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving properties of the function F(x) = (1/x) ∫₀ˣ e^(-t²) dt without directly calculating the integral. The user successfully demonstrates that the limit of F as x approaches 0 is 1 using L'Hôpital's rule and the fundamental theorem of calculus. Additionally, they establish that F(x) is less than 1 for all x > 0 by defining a new function G and proving that its derivative G'(x) is negative. Finally, they argue that 1 is the supremum of F on the interval (0, ∞) by contradiction, showing that any upper bound c < 1 leads to a contradiction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of L'Hôpital's rule
  • Familiarity with the fundamental theorem of calculus
  • Knowledge of continuity and differentiability of functions
  • Basic concepts of limits and supremum in real analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the exponential function, particularly e^(-t²)
  • Learn about the fundamental theorem of calculus in depth
  • Explore rigorous proof techniques in real analysis
  • Investigate the concept of upper bounds and supremum in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those focusing on real analysis, calculus, and proof techniques. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to strengthen their understanding of limits and properties of integrals without direct computation.

daniel_i_l
Gold Member
Messages
864
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


let [tex]F(x) = {\frac{1}{x}}{\int^{x}_{0} e^{-t^2} dt}[/tex]
Prove, without calculating the integral (but assuming that F exists in (0,infinity)) that:
a) the limit of F at 0 is 1.
b) for all x>0 [tex]\int^{x}_{0} e^{-t^2} dt <= x[/tex]
x) supF((0,infinity)) = 1

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


a) I solved a using l'hospital's rule and the fundamental theorem.

b) First I defined a new function G where G(x) = F(x) for all x>0 and G(x) = 1 for x=0.
Now, I know that G is continues for all x>=0 and has a derivative for all x>0. So I have to prove that G'(x) < 0 for all x>0. I got that in order to prove that I have to prove that
[tex]\int^{x}_{0} e^{-t^2} dt > x e^{-x^2}[/tex] for all x>0. In order to do this I can define a new function [tex]H(x) \int^{x}_{0} e^{-t^2} dt - x e^{-x^2}[/tex]. Now, H(0)=0 and for all x>0 H'(x) >0 and so H(x)>0 for all x>0 which means that G'(x) < 0 for all x>0 and so G(x) < 1 for all x>0 and since in this domain G(x)=F(x) we get that F(x)<1 for all x>0.
But this is a stronger result than what was asked for (=<), is my proof right?

c)We know from b that 1 is an upper bound of F in (0,infinity). Now, let's assume that there exists a number 0<c<1 so that c is also an upper bound. Since the limit of F at 0 is 1 we can find a D (delta) so that for all 0<x<D |F(x)-1| < (1-c)/2. This means that
F(x)-1 > -(1-c)/2 => F(x) > c which contradicts the fact that c is an upper bound!

Are those right? Especially (b) and (c).
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone? Please tell me if anything is unclear.
Thanks.
 
Sorry, the things you're supposed to prove all seem completely obvious to me, but I rarely know what constitutes a mathematically rigorous proof.

For (b), I would say e^(-t^2) <= 1 for all real t, so the its integral over any range will be <= the integral of 1 over that range. But I suppose I need to *prove* e^(-t^2) <= 1 for all real t first ...
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K