Proving Integration Notation for Smooth Function f

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving an integration notation for a smooth function \( f: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R} \) defined in a neighborhood of a point \( a \) in \( \mathbb{R}^n \). Participants explore the relationship between the function, its partial derivatives, and the integral representation, examining the implications of treating variables as constants during integration.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to prove the integral representation of the function and questions the justification of their steps, particularly regarding the use of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
  • Another participant agrees with the approach and provides a transformation of the integral, suggesting it leads to the desired result.
  • A subsequent reply raises a concern about the interpretation of the derivative \( dy/dt \) and the dimensionality of \( y \), arguing that \( y \) is a function of multiple variables and questioning the meaning of \( f'(y)dy \) in this context.
  • Another participant suggests that \( f'(y) \) could be interpreted as a Jacobian matrix, which complicates the definition of the antiderivative.
  • One participant proposes that \( a \) and \( x \) can be treated as arbitrary constants to simplify the discussion.
  • A later reply elaborates on the interpretation of the derivative \( D/Dt \) in the context of multiple variables, asserting that during integration, \( x \) is treated as a constant, which leads to a formal justification of the initial claim.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of variables and the implications for the derivative and integral. There is no consensus on the correctness of the initial proof or the interpretations of the derivatives involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in understanding the dimensionality of the variables and the implications of treating certain variables as constants during integration. The discussion remains focused on the mathematical formulation without reaching a definitive conclusion.

mathboy
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
Notation: I = integral sign from 0 to 1, D= partial derivative symbol.

Please help me prove that for any smooth function f:R^n -> R defined on a neighbourhood of a in R^n,

f(x) = f(a) + I{(D/Dt)f(a+t(x-a))dt}

Here's my attempt:
(D/Dt)f(a+t(x-a))dt = d[f(a+t(x-a)] (justification needed?)
so

I [(D/Dt)f(a+t(x-a))dt] = I d[f(a+t(x-a)]
= f(a+1(x-a)) - f(a+0(x-a)) (Fundamental theorem of calculus, right?)
= f(x)-f(a).

Am I right, or am I making many unjustified steps here?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks fine to me.

After all, set [tex]y=a+t(x-a),t=1\to{y}=x,t=0\to{y}=a,\frac{dy}{dt}=(x-a)[/tex]
Thereby, your integral is readily converted to:
[tex]I=f(a)+\int_{a}^{x}f'(y)dy=f(x)[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Thanks arildno. But there is one major confusion here. Your dy/dt is supposed to have the partial derivative symbols, right? Because y is a function of x=(x_1,...,x_n) and t, i.e. a function of n+1 variables and not just a function of t alone.

Also, y= a + t(x-a) is a function that has n components, because x and a are elements of R^n. So what exactly is the meaning of f'(y)dy when your y is not a real number but a variable in R^n?
 
Last edited:
The only thing I can make out of your f'(y) is a Jacobian matrix, in which case the antiderivative cannot be defined.
 
You can regard "a" and "x" as arbitrary constants.
 
arildno said:
You can regard "a" and "x" as arbitrary constants.

Ok, I think I'm onto something. Please tell me if my explanation below is correct. Remember, I'm using D for the partial derivative symbol.

Let’s first understand what (D/Dt)f(a+t(x-a)) means: Since x belongs to R^n, then f is a function of the n variables x=(x_1,...,x_n). Now with the introduction of the new independent variable t (which is totally independent of x and vice versa), the expression
f(a+t(x-a)) is now a function of n+1 variables, and hence the partial derivative symbol D/Dt.

Having said that, f(a+t(x-a)) also appears as the integrand in I{(D/Dt)f(a+t(x-a))dt} (I'm using I as the integral symbol from 0 to 1), and here we are integrating with respect to t only. Thus we are treating x as a constant within the expression f(a+t(x-a)) during the process of integration, since the integration is with respect to t only (if it was a double integral where we are also integrating with respect to x, then x is certainly no longer treated as a constant). Thus (within the integral only) we can write (D/Dt)f(a+t(x-a) as (d/dt)f(a+t(x-a)) , whereby we get

I{(D/Dt)f(a+t(x-a))dt} = I{(d/dt)f(a+t(x-a))dt} = I{d[f(a+t(x-a))]},

which is the formal justification of the first line in my original solution. Am I right?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K