Why no change in limits of integration here?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of u-substitution in definite integrals, specifically questioning the necessity of changing the limits of integration when performing such substitutions. Participants reference examples to illustrate their points and clarify their understanding of the process.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the reasoning behind changing limits of integration during u-substitution, with some questioning the necessity of reverting to original limits. Others provide examples to illustrate different approaches to handling limits in definite integrals.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing insights and examples. Some have offered clarifications on when to change limits and the rationale behind u-substitution, while others express confusion about the process and its implications.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of varying interpretations regarding the application of u-substitution in definite integrals, particularly concerning the treatment of limits of integration. Participants also note the potential complexity of calculating new limits in certain cases.

opus
Gold Member
Messages
717
Reaction score
131

Homework Statement


Please see attached image for the full scope of the problem, and to see the work drawn out by the text.
My question lies with line 3 as it is clear that u-substitution was used on a definite integral, but the limits of integration were not changed.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I think that line 3 should read:

##=100+\left[100e^{0.02t}\right]|_0^{0.2}##

My reasoning is that when t=0, u=0 and when t=10, u=0.2
Screen Shot 2018-11-24 at 9.40.50 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-11-24 at 9.40.50 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-11-24 at 9.40.50 PM.png
    15.4 KB · Views: 716
Physics news on Phys.org
No u-substitution was necessary. It's a easily confirmable fact that
$$ \int_a^b A e^{Bt} dt = [\frac{A}{B} e^{Bt}]^{b}_a $$

However, even if a u-substitution were used, if you change back to your original integration variable, you should change the limits back.

For example, if I had

$$ \begin{align*}
\int_0^{\pi/2} \sin(\theta) \cos(\theta) d\theta &= \int_0^1 u\, du\\
&= [ \frac{1}{2} u^2]^1_0\\
&= [\frac{1}{2} \sin^2(\theta)] ^{\pi/2}_0\\
&= \frac{1}{2}
\end{align*} $$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: opus
Thank you for the reply. So if we change back, what's the point of changing them in the first place?
Maybe my confusion lies in the fact that I'm not really sure why we change them to begin with.
 
opus said:
Thank you for the reply. So if we change back, what's the point of changing them in the first place?
Maybe my confusion lies in the fact that I'm not really sure why we change them to begin with.

We generally make a u-substitution to make integration easier, and more straightforward. For example, in the integral I gave above, it's not immediately obvious how to integrate it, until you make the substitution ##u = \sin(\theta)##. Then it becomes trivial. Generally, for a definite integral, there's no reason to switch back, unless calculating the new limits is for some reason very difficult, which is pretty rare. For an indefinite integral, you pretty much always switch back, because you want the answer in terms of your original variable -- but in that case, there are no limits of integration, so it's a bit of a moot point.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: opus
So then if I use u-substitution I will always have to change the limits of integration, and once I do so, I don't have to change them back. But if I don't use u-substitution, then I obviously don't have to change the limits of integration and I can just proceed with ##F(b)-F(a)##?
 
Yes, that is correct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: opus
opus said:
Thank you for the reply. So if we change back, what's the point of changing them in the first place?
Maybe my confusion lies in the fact that I'm not really sure why we change them to begin with.
The reason for a substitution (which isn't the question you asked) is to get an integral that's easier to evaluate. If the integral is a definite integral, you can change the limits of integration to new limits, or you can leave them unchanged, provided that you remember that the integral is in terms of one variable, and the limits are of a different variable.

Here's Dewgale's example, where the limits of integration are changed:
##\int_0^{\pi/2} \sin(\theta) \cos(\theta) d\theta = \int_0^1 u\, du\\
= [ \frac{1}{2} u^2]^1_0\\
= [\frac{1}{2} \sin^2(\theta)] ^{\pi/2}_0\\
= \frac{1}{2}##

Same example, with the limits not changed:
##\int_0^{\pi/2} \sin(\theta) \cos(\theta) d\theta = \int_{\theta = 0}^{\pi/2} u\, du\\
= [ \frac{1}{2} u^2]_{\theta = 0}^{\pi/2}\\
= [\frac{1}{2} \sin^2(\theta)] ^{\pi/2}_0\\
= \frac{1}{2}##

In the next to last line above, we "undid" the substitution, so the integral is again in terms of ##\theta##, so I no longer need to remind myself of this fact.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: opus
Interesting so for the first example, line 2, you have an integral in terms of ##u##, and limits in terms of ##u##. Then in the next line, everything is back in terms of θ.
For the second example, line 2, you have an integral in terms of ##u## and limits in terms of θ. But once you change the integral back in terms of θ they both now match. This makes sense.
I was under the impression that once you used u-substitution, you had a new function and thus would need new limits of integration. But I can see, as you said, that either way they end up with the same solution.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K