Prove that a function must have only x dependency

  • Thread starter Thread starter matteo86bo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the function f(x,t) must equal g(t) under specific conditions in the given integral equation. Participants clarify that the notation \int_{\Delta T}f(x,t) refers to the integral of f(x,t) from 0 to ΔT, which is defined as a positive real number. It is established that after performing the outer integration, all instances of x disappear, leaving a function solely dependent on t. The conversation also addresses the implications of assuming f(x,t) can be expressed as g(t) plus another function h(x), questioning whether h(x) must equal zero under these constraints. Ultimately, the integration process confirms that the variable used in the integral is a dummy variable, reinforcing that the relationship primarily involves t.
matteo86bo
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
If I have this equation:
<br /> <br /> \int_0^{+\infty}{\frac{e^{-x}}{\int_{\Delta T}f(x,t)}f(x,t)xdx}=Ag(t)<br /> <br />

I am interested to show that f(x,t) must be g(t). This condition must be necessary and sufficient. Is this possible to prove?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, what does \int_{\Delta T}f(x,t) mean?

Second, is the problem to show that the only way for this statement to be true is for f(x,t) to be equal to g(t) (for all x)?
 
Last edited:
pellman said:
First, what does \int_{\Delta T}f(x,t) mean?
\int_{\Delta T}f(x,t)=\int_0^{\Delta T}f(x,t)dt
sorry, I skip the "dt"
Second, is the problem to show that the only way for this statement to be true is for f(x,t) to be equal to g(t) (for all x)?
yes, for all positive x.
 
What is ΔT?
 
Tedjn said:
What is ΔT?

a positive real number, sorry
 
Once you do the outer integration, all instances of x disappear, so you are left with a function of t. Of course, it's completely possible this may equal ±∞ for some or all values of t.
 
Tedjn said:
Once you do the outer integration, all instances of x disappear, so you are left with a function of t. Of course, it's completely possible this may equal ±∞ for some or all values of t.

if the integrandus if choose to be positive for all x and t, can't you say nothing?

furthermore,if f(x,t)=g(t)+h(x)
is now possibile to prove that h(x)=0 for all x??
 
I don't understand your line of questioning. What does f(x,t) being positive have to do with anything? Moreover, you can not say that f(x,t) = g(t) + h(x) without further constraints on f(x,t); who knows how mixed up x and t are. The process of integration gets rid of the x.
 
Tedjn said:
The process of integration gets rid of the x.
of course it does.
sorry, I wasn't as clear as possibile.
If now I fix the x dependency by means of f(x,t)=g(t)+h(x), it can be proved that h(x)=0 or I'm fancy about it?
 
  • #10
Why?

\int_a^b f(t)dt= \int_a^b f(u)du= \int_a^b f(x)dx= \int_a^b f(y)dy= F(b)- F(a).

Whatever variable the integral is "with respect to" is a "dummy" variable and does not appear in the result. "t" is the only "true" variable in that equation.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K