Why can't the indefinite integral be written with sigma notation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between indefinite integrals and sigma notation, particularly focusing on the nature of summation in calculus. Participants explore the conceptual underpinnings of integration, the implications of using sigma notation for infinitesimal increments, and the relationship between indefinite integrals and definite integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that while sigma notation (Ʃ) sums finite measures, integration (∫) sums infinitesimal measures, and questions whether sigma notation can simulate infinitesimal increments.
  • Another participant points out that the result of an indefinite integral should be a function, whereas the proposed formula evaluates to a number, highlighting a fundamental issue with the initial approach.
  • A later reply indicates that the proposed summation is akin to calculating the area under the curve, equating it to a definite integral from -∞ to ∞.
  • One participant raises a related question about whether there is an algebraic process for indefinite integration similar to the differentiation process, particularly for polynomials, expressing concern over the clumsiness of existing methods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of using sigma notation for indefinite integrals, with some agreeing on the conceptual challenges while others contest the proposed equivalences. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the appropriateness of sigma notation in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations such as the nature of infinity not being a number and the distinction between indefinite and definite integrals, but do not resolve these issues.

hddd123456789
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Hi, I've been wondering this since I started learning integration. I get that ∫ is basically an elongated S for "sum", because that is what it is basically doing. But then Ʃ does the same thing as well. If I'm understanding the difference, it is that Ʃ increments by finite measures, whereas ∫ increments by infinitesimal measures. But even if that is the difference, can't you 'simulate' infinitesimal incrementation with sigma notation? I gave it a shot below:

∫f(x)dx=\sum^{∞}_{i=1}f(idx)dx+\sum^{∞}_{i=1}f(-idx)dx=\sum^{∞}_{i=1}f(idx)dx+f(-idx)dx=\sum^{∞}_{i=-∞}f(idx)dx

Which is basically saying that the indefinite integral is equal to a sum. The way to get the sum is to divide the real number line from 0 to ∞ into ∞ parts. I get that ∞ isn't any particular number, but shouldn't we at least be able to say that each of these ∞ parts has a length of dx?

If that's the case, then you would take two sums, one from 0 to ∞, and the other from 0 to -∞ and increment by dx as you sum each area given by f(i*dx)*dx from the positive and negative ends of the number line. What do you think?

[Edit: I see that the first two sums is actually not equal to the third, since the first two actually skip over 0. So technically, the indefinitely integral is equal to the last sum, not the first two?]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The serious problem with the formula you give is that the result of an indefinite integral is supposed to be a function. The formula you give evaluates to a number.

The less serious problem is the one you already pointed out: ∞ is not a number. That caveat aside, the approach you give is the essense of the Riemann integral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_integral
 
Yeah, as soon as I tried to solve out using that formula, I realized for myself that this is basically trying to sum up the whole are under the curve to infinity. Basically it is equal to the definite integral from -∞ to ∞, as below?

∫^{∞}_{-∞}f(x)dx=\sum^{∞}_{i=-∞}f(idx)dx
 
And actually, I had another question that was related enough that I figured I would ask in the same thread. I sort of understand, I think, that the motivation for calculating the area under the curve and determining of the anti-derivative/indefinite integral were not necessarily related. And that the indefinite integral said something about the area under the curve wasn't known a priori?

Well, anyway, what I'm wondering is when I see for example the following:

f(x)=\frac{d}{dx}F(x)=\frac{F(x+dx)-F(x)}{dx}

I can apply it algebraically using infinitesimals to, for example, f(x)=x^2, as per:

\frac{d}{dx}x^2=\frac{(x+dx)^2-x^2}{dx}
=\frac{x^2+2xdx+dx^2-x^2}{dx}
=\frac{2xdx+dx^2}{dx}
=\frac{dx(2x+dx)}{dx}
=2x+dx
=2x+0
=2x

But is there an equivalent algebraic process for indefinite integration that applies at least to polynomials? I get that integration is basically like taking an infinitesimal sum, which from the scale of real numbers would be akin to taking an infinite sum of infinitesimals, so the only method that I can think of is the algebraic equivalence of a series. But these just seem so clunky for me. Am I missing something, or is the only practical way to determine the indefinite integral to just follow the derivation process in reverse?

And apologies if my terminology is a bit non-rigorous.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K