Simple integral - but a question of methodology

  • Thread starter Thread starter ianb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating a simple integral, specifically \(\int \frac{(x-1)}{2} dx\), and the methodology behind different approaches to finding its antiderivative. Participants explore substitution and direct integration methods, questioning the validity of their results and the implications of constants in antiderivatives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss two methods of integration, questioning why both yield different expressions for the antiderivative and whether one is more correct than the other. There is a focus on the implications of constants in the context of definite integrals.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants providing insights into the nature of antiderivatives and their evaluation over specific intervals. Some participants assert that both methods are valid and yield the same result when evaluated correctly, while others express confusion about the differences in outcomes when applying definite integrals.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of evaluating the integral from specific bounds, such as 0 to 1.7, and question whether expansion is necessary for accurate comparison of results. There is an acknowledgment of potential errors in notation and calculation as participants clarify their points.

ianb
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
simple integral -- but a question of methodology

[tex]\int \frac{(x-1)}{2} dx[/tex]

First, try substitution. Let [tex]u = x - 1[/tex], and [tex]du = dx[/tex][tex]\int \frac{u}{2} du[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{2} \int u \ du[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{2} \times \frac{u^{2}}{2}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{2} \times \frac{(x-1)^2}{2}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{(x-1)^{2}}{4} + C[/tex]

Or we could do this:

[tex]\int \frac{(x-1)}{2} dx[/tex]

[tex]\int \frac{1}{2}(x-1)dx[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{2} \int(x-1)dx[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{2} (\frac{x^2}{2} - x) + C[/tex]

[tex]\frac{1}{4} (x^2 - 2x) + C[/tex]

Why should one of them be right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
They're both right. Antiderivatives differ by a constant. (Differentiating eliminates the constant term). Show that those two answers differ by a constant.
 
ianb said:
...
[tex]\frac{1}{4} (x^2 - \frac{x}{2}) + C[/tex]

Why should one of them be right?
The last line is wrong. You've pulled out the factor 1 / 4 incorrectly.
It should read:
[tex]\frac{1}{4} \left( x ^ 2 - 2x \right)[/tex]
Both are correct, the two results differ from each other by a constant 1/4.
You should note that if F(x) is one anti-derivative of f(x), then F(x) + C is also f(x)'s anti-derivative, where C is any constant.
Proof: Differentiate the LHS with respect to x, we have:
(F(x) + C)' = F'(x) + C' = F'(x) + 0 (the derivative of a constant is just 0)
= F'(x) = f(x)
Can you get this? :)
 
Well I can certainly show that, just expand it. But the issue arises when you evaluate the area, say from 0 to 1.7, and using either ways give different answers. In fact, the answers differ by 0.25.

Thoughts?
 
Ah, my apologies. I was rushing through latex'ing my equations (still a newbie)--should have double checked it.
 
ianb said:
Well I can certainly show that, just expand it. But the issue arises when you evaluate the area, say from 0 to 1.7, and using either ways give different answers. In fact, the answers differ by 0.25.

Thoughts?
Nope, they are identically the same, let F(x) + C1, and F(x) + C2 be two anti-derivatives of f(x), we have:
[tex]\int_a^b f(x) dx = (F(b) + C_1) - (F(a) + C_1) = F(b) - F(a)[/tex]
[tex]\int_a^b f(x) dx = (F(b) + C_2) - (F(a) + C_2) = F(b) - F(a)[/tex], they are still the same.
The constant will automatically vanish when you subtract the two terms. :)
 
Hm. What if the lower bound is zero, I don't think it does. Look at the substitution method, and evaluate it from 0 to 1.7. You will still get a difference of 0.25 than if you compare it with the other method. Of course, you might say that the constants do indeed cancel even with 0 set as the lower bound, but that will require me to expand--why? I mean, why would the answers be the same after expansion, and different without it? Does integration by substitution require expansion of factors?
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. Message edited accordingly.
 
ianb said:
Hm. What if the lower bound is zero, I don't think it does. Look at the substitution method, and evaluate it from 0 to 1. You will still get a difference of 0.25 than if you compare it with the other method. Of course, you might say that the constants do indeed cancel even with 0 set as the lower bound, but that will require me to expand--why? I mean, why would the answers be the same after expansion, and different without it? Does integration by substitution require expansion of factors?
Uhm, well, no, they are not different.
Well, here we go:
[tex]\int_0 ^ 1 \frac{x - 1}{2} dx = \left. \left( \frac{(x - 1) ^ 2}{4} \right) \right|_0 ^ 1 = \frac{(1 - 1) ^ 2}{4} - \frac{(0 - 1) ^ 2}{4} = 0 - \frac{1}{4} = -\frac{1}{4}[/tex]

[tex]\int_0 ^ 1 \frac{x - 1}{2} dx = \left. \frac{1}{4} \left( x ^ 2 - 2x \right) \right|_0 ^ 1 = \frac{1}{4} \left( (1 ^ 2 - 2 \times 1) - (0 ^ 2 - 0) \right) = \frac{1}{4} (-1 - 0) = -\frac{1}{4}[/tex]
They are the same. :)
 
  • #10
Wow. I'm embarrassed to say the least. You, sir, rock my world.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K