Prove that a function must have only x dependency

  • Thread starter Thread starter matteo86bo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a relationship between a function \( f(x,t) \) and another function \( g(t) \) based on an integral equation involving \( x \) and \( t \). The original poster seeks to establish that \( f(x,t) \) must equal \( g(t) \) under certain conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the meaning of the integral notation and the implications of the variables involved. Questions arise regarding the necessity of \( f(x,t) \) being equal to \( g(t) \) for all positive \( x \) and the role of the integration process in eliminating \( x \) from the equation.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants questioning the assumptions made about the functions involved and the implications of the integration process. Some guidance has been offered regarding the nature of dummy variables in integrals, but no consensus has been reached on the proof itself.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of clarity regarding the definition of \( \Delta T \) and the constraints on the functions \( f(x,t) \) and \( g(t) \). Participants are also considering the positivity of the functions involved and its relevance to the proof.

matteo86bo
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
If I have this equation:
[tex] <br /> \int_0^{+\infty}{\frac{e^{-x}}{\int_{\Delta T}f(x,t)}f(x,t)xdx}=Ag(t)<br /> [/tex]

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 [tex]\int_{\Delta T}f(x,t)[/tex] 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 [tex]\int_{\Delta T}f(x,t)[/tex] mean?
[tex]\int_{\Delta T}f(x,t)=\int_0^{\Delta T}f(x,t)dt[/tex]
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 [tex]f(x,t)=g(t)+h(x)[/tex]
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?

[tex]\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)[/tex].

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
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K