What is the True Definition of Indefinite Integrals?

cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
38
Well, this is an embarrassingly elementary question, but in my lecture slides (for an electrical engineering course, not a math course) the prof suddenly springs this claim on us:

The true definition of an indefinite integral is:

\int{f(t)dt} \equiv \int_{-\infty}^{t} {f(\tau) d\tau}

Well, I've never seen this before in my calculus text, and my attempt to make sense of it doesn't go so well. From what we know already, if F(t) is an antiderviative of f(t), then the left hand side becomes:

\int{f(t)dt} = F(t) + C

In comparison, from what I know of improper integrals, the right hand side should be:

\int_{-\infty}^{t} {f(\tau) d\tau} = \lim_{a \rightarrow -\infty} \int_{a}^{t} {f(\tau) d\tau}

= F(t) - [\lim_{a \rightarrow -\infty} F(a)]

So this "definition" is only true if the limit of the function F(t) as t approaches negative infinity exists and is either constant or zero. Why should this be true in general?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Nope,the definition of the indefinite integrals (is that an oxymoron,or what??:bugeye:) of real valued functions over a certain domain of \mathbb{R} is simply (original notation)

I(f(x))=:\left \{F(x)+C\left|\right\frac{dF(x)}{dx}=f(x),\frac{dC}{dx}=0\right\}

So the indefinite integral of a function is not a function,but a set of functions...

Daniel.
 
I don't know why your prof. said that, but I suspect he introduces it, because it would be important to realize in his notation for the remainder of the course.
Since it's an engineering class, I guess he can do that :rolleyes:

The biggest difference to note between a definite and an indefinite integral is that the former is a number, while the second is a function, or family of functions (a general notation for an antiderivative).
 
Haha, yes, our engineering classes are quite ridiculous sometimes compared to our math and physics classes since they take so many liberties with the math! So not to worry, I'm not in such dire straits as it first may seem (for instance, I'm well aware of the difference between indefinite and definite integrals), its just that I came across this and it seemed totally off the wall. The only thing I can think of is that since he introduced it in the context of Laplace transforms (this was in the course of him trying to show us what taking the Laplace transform of the integral of a function results in), and all of the functions in the time domain that he seems to want us to worry about are zero for t less than zero! (If they aren't so by definition, then he just multiplies them by the unit step function which "steps up" at zero, so that they are).

I like Daniel's definition. I have not seen it expressed that way before, though it makes perfect sense. :smile:

Thanks everyone.
 
U'll have to take care and 'report anything suspicious'...:wink:

Daniel.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top