Can an indefinite integral be expressed as a definite integral with variable bounds?
If I have a function $f(t)$, and an indefinite integral of this function, $g(x) = int f(t), dt$, is there any way I can express $g(x)$ as a definite integral whose bounds depend on $x$?
I thought I saw somewhere that I could express it as
$$g(x) = int_a^x f(t), dt$$
but I don't know what $a$ is. Is this representation correct? Or is there a better way to express $g$?
calculus definite-integrals indefinite-integrals
add a comment |
If I have a function $f(t)$, and an indefinite integral of this function, $g(x) = int f(t), dt$, is there any way I can express $g(x)$ as a definite integral whose bounds depend on $x$?
I thought I saw somewhere that I could express it as
$$g(x) = int_a^x f(t), dt$$
but I don't know what $a$ is. Is this representation correct? Or is there a better way to express $g$?
calculus definite-integrals indefinite-integrals
The second representation is correct. The first one doesn't represent $g$ as a function of $x$.
– user23793
3 hours ago
add a comment |
If I have a function $f(t)$, and an indefinite integral of this function, $g(x) = int f(t), dt$, is there any way I can express $g(x)$ as a definite integral whose bounds depend on $x$?
I thought I saw somewhere that I could express it as
$$g(x) = int_a^x f(t), dt$$
but I don't know what $a$ is. Is this representation correct? Or is there a better way to express $g$?
calculus definite-integrals indefinite-integrals
If I have a function $f(t)$, and an indefinite integral of this function, $g(x) = int f(t), dt$, is there any way I can express $g(x)$ as a definite integral whose bounds depend on $x$?
I thought I saw somewhere that I could express it as
$$g(x) = int_a^x f(t), dt$$
but I don't know what $a$ is. Is this representation correct? Or is there a better way to express $g$?
calculus definite-integrals indefinite-integrals
calculus definite-integrals indefinite-integrals
edited 3 hours ago
Ethan Bolker
41.2k547108
41.2k547108
asked 3 hours ago
clabe45
1295
1295
The second representation is correct. The first one doesn't represent $g$ as a function of $x$.
– user23793
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The second representation is correct. The first one doesn't represent $g$ as a function of $x$.
– user23793
3 hours ago
The second representation is correct. The first one doesn't represent $g$ as a function of $x$.
– user23793
3 hours ago
The second representation is correct. The first one doesn't represent $g$ as a function of $x$.
– user23793
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No, not always.
In fact, the definite integral with variable bounds can be and is strictly more restrictive than the indefinite integral, in the most general case where both can be taken as sensibly existing to their fullest extent that we can say one defines the same kind of function as the other.
While it is true that if we have two functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ defined by definite integrals of the same function with different bounds, i.e.
$$F_1(x) := int_{a_1}^{x} f(t) dt mathrm{and} F_2(x) := int_{a_2}^{x} f(t) dt$$
with $a_1 ne a_2$, then we will have that $F_1 - F_2$ is a constant function, the range of possible such constants may be limited. A simple counterexample is to take $f(x) := sin(x)$. Now the integral from any lower bound $a$ to $x$ is just $int_a^x sin(t) dt = cos(a) - cos(x)$, but here $cos(a)$ - the "constant" of our integration - can only range in $[-1, 1]$ (and the difference of any two such "constants" only within $[-2, 2]$), but the constant in $int sin(x) dx = -cos(x) + C$ can be any real number whatsoever, even one far outside this range, say assign $C := mbox{Graham's number}$. Thus the integrals with variable bounds are not exhaustive of the full family of antiderivatives, which is what is represented by the indefinite integral, and if we are really pedantic should be truly written as the set it is: in "reality", not in the informalities of school calculus,
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) + C : C in mathbb{R} right}$$
where $F'(x) = f(x)$. Actually, if we want to be really correct - and in fact this is important but only in cases where the definite integral technically doesn't make sense as evaluable between arbitrary pairs of points - we should take
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) in mathbb{R}^mathbb{R} : mbox{$F'$ exists and $F'(x) = f(x)$} right}$$.
+1 I thought about going to this level of sophistication in my much shorter answer but decided the OP needed just the central points I made. Now they can see both views.
– Ethan Bolker
3 hours ago
Very pedantic answer that is 100% valid and makes a distinction I had never thought about. +1 from me too. Heck, I'd give it a +5 if it was possible/allowed.
– JonathanZ
3 hours ago
I'm having a hard time understanding this, as I'm new to Calculus, but it's ok.
– clabe45
3 mins ago
add a comment |
That fixed but arbitrary lower limit is essentially the "arbitrary constant" you use when finding antiderivatives, because
$$
g(x) = int_a^x f(t), dt =
int_b^x f(t), dt +
int_a^b f(t), dt .
$$
The second term in that sum is just a number.
The fundamental theorem of calculus says that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$.
The "indefinite integral" with no limits specified refers to the whole set of antiderivatives, not any particular one of them.
I'm almost following what you're saying, but not quite. I understand that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$, but how does that make the constant integral the arbitrary constant?
– clabe45
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056882%2fcan-an-indefinite-integral-be-expressed-as-a-definite-integral-with-variable-bou%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, not always.
In fact, the definite integral with variable bounds can be and is strictly more restrictive than the indefinite integral, in the most general case where both can be taken as sensibly existing to their fullest extent that we can say one defines the same kind of function as the other.
While it is true that if we have two functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ defined by definite integrals of the same function with different bounds, i.e.
$$F_1(x) := int_{a_1}^{x} f(t) dt mathrm{and} F_2(x) := int_{a_2}^{x} f(t) dt$$
with $a_1 ne a_2$, then we will have that $F_1 - F_2$ is a constant function, the range of possible such constants may be limited. A simple counterexample is to take $f(x) := sin(x)$. Now the integral from any lower bound $a$ to $x$ is just $int_a^x sin(t) dt = cos(a) - cos(x)$, but here $cos(a)$ - the "constant" of our integration - can only range in $[-1, 1]$ (and the difference of any two such "constants" only within $[-2, 2]$), but the constant in $int sin(x) dx = -cos(x) + C$ can be any real number whatsoever, even one far outside this range, say assign $C := mbox{Graham's number}$. Thus the integrals with variable bounds are not exhaustive of the full family of antiderivatives, which is what is represented by the indefinite integral, and if we are really pedantic should be truly written as the set it is: in "reality", not in the informalities of school calculus,
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) + C : C in mathbb{R} right}$$
where $F'(x) = f(x)$. Actually, if we want to be really correct - and in fact this is important but only in cases where the definite integral technically doesn't make sense as evaluable between arbitrary pairs of points - we should take
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) in mathbb{R}^mathbb{R} : mbox{$F'$ exists and $F'(x) = f(x)$} right}$$.
+1 I thought about going to this level of sophistication in my much shorter answer but decided the OP needed just the central points I made. Now they can see both views.
– Ethan Bolker
3 hours ago
Very pedantic answer that is 100% valid and makes a distinction I had never thought about. +1 from me too. Heck, I'd give it a +5 if it was possible/allowed.
– JonathanZ
3 hours ago
I'm having a hard time understanding this, as I'm new to Calculus, but it's ok.
– clabe45
3 mins ago
add a comment |
No, not always.
In fact, the definite integral with variable bounds can be and is strictly more restrictive than the indefinite integral, in the most general case where both can be taken as sensibly existing to their fullest extent that we can say one defines the same kind of function as the other.
While it is true that if we have two functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ defined by definite integrals of the same function with different bounds, i.e.
$$F_1(x) := int_{a_1}^{x} f(t) dt mathrm{and} F_2(x) := int_{a_2}^{x} f(t) dt$$
with $a_1 ne a_2$, then we will have that $F_1 - F_2$ is a constant function, the range of possible such constants may be limited. A simple counterexample is to take $f(x) := sin(x)$. Now the integral from any lower bound $a$ to $x$ is just $int_a^x sin(t) dt = cos(a) - cos(x)$, but here $cos(a)$ - the "constant" of our integration - can only range in $[-1, 1]$ (and the difference of any two such "constants" only within $[-2, 2]$), but the constant in $int sin(x) dx = -cos(x) + C$ can be any real number whatsoever, even one far outside this range, say assign $C := mbox{Graham's number}$. Thus the integrals with variable bounds are not exhaustive of the full family of antiderivatives, which is what is represented by the indefinite integral, and if we are really pedantic should be truly written as the set it is: in "reality", not in the informalities of school calculus,
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) + C : C in mathbb{R} right}$$
where $F'(x) = f(x)$. Actually, if we want to be really correct - and in fact this is important but only in cases where the definite integral technically doesn't make sense as evaluable between arbitrary pairs of points - we should take
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) in mathbb{R}^mathbb{R} : mbox{$F'$ exists and $F'(x) = f(x)$} right}$$.
+1 I thought about going to this level of sophistication in my much shorter answer but decided the OP needed just the central points I made. Now they can see both views.
– Ethan Bolker
3 hours ago
Very pedantic answer that is 100% valid and makes a distinction I had never thought about. +1 from me too. Heck, I'd give it a +5 if it was possible/allowed.
– JonathanZ
3 hours ago
I'm having a hard time understanding this, as I'm new to Calculus, but it's ok.
– clabe45
3 mins ago
add a comment |
No, not always.
In fact, the definite integral with variable bounds can be and is strictly more restrictive than the indefinite integral, in the most general case where both can be taken as sensibly existing to their fullest extent that we can say one defines the same kind of function as the other.
While it is true that if we have two functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ defined by definite integrals of the same function with different bounds, i.e.
$$F_1(x) := int_{a_1}^{x} f(t) dt mathrm{and} F_2(x) := int_{a_2}^{x} f(t) dt$$
with $a_1 ne a_2$, then we will have that $F_1 - F_2$ is a constant function, the range of possible such constants may be limited. A simple counterexample is to take $f(x) := sin(x)$. Now the integral from any lower bound $a$ to $x$ is just $int_a^x sin(t) dt = cos(a) - cos(x)$, but here $cos(a)$ - the "constant" of our integration - can only range in $[-1, 1]$ (and the difference of any two such "constants" only within $[-2, 2]$), but the constant in $int sin(x) dx = -cos(x) + C$ can be any real number whatsoever, even one far outside this range, say assign $C := mbox{Graham's number}$. Thus the integrals with variable bounds are not exhaustive of the full family of antiderivatives, which is what is represented by the indefinite integral, and if we are really pedantic should be truly written as the set it is: in "reality", not in the informalities of school calculus,
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) + C : C in mathbb{R} right}$$
where $F'(x) = f(x)$. Actually, if we want to be really correct - and in fact this is important but only in cases where the definite integral technically doesn't make sense as evaluable between arbitrary pairs of points - we should take
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) in mathbb{R}^mathbb{R} : mbox{$F'$ exists and $F'(x) = f(x)$} right}$$.
No, not always.
In fact, the definite integral with variable bounds can be and is strictly more restrictive than the indefinite integral, in the most general case where both can be taken as sensibly existing to their fullest extent that we can say one defines the same kind of function as the other.
While it is true that if we have two functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ defined by definite integrals of the same function with different bounds, i.e.
$$F_1(x) := int_{a_1}^{x} f(t) dt mathrm{and} F_2(x) := int_{a_2}^{x} f(t) dt$$
with $a_1 ne a_2$, then we will have that $F_1 - F_2$ is a constant function, the range of possible such constants may be limited. A simple counterexample is to take $f(x) := sin(x)$. Now the integral from any lower bound $a$ to $x$ is just $int_a^x sin(t) dt = cos(a) - cos(x)$, but here $cos(a)$ - the "constant" of our integration - can only range in $[-1, 1]$ (and the difference of any two such "constants" only within $[-2, 2]$), but the constant in $int sin(x) dx = -cos(x) + C$ can be any real number whatsoever, even one far outside this range, say assign $C := mbox{Graham's number}$. Thus the integrals with variable bounds are not exhaustive of the full family of antiderivatives, which is what is represented by the indefinite integral, and if we are really pedantic should be truly written as the set it is: in "reality", not in the informalities of school calculus,
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) + C : C in mathbb{R} right}$$
where $F'(x) = f(x)$. Actually, if we want to be really correct - and in fact this is important but only in cases where the definite integral technically doesn't make sense as evaluable between arbitrary pairs of points - we should take
$$int f(x) dx = left{ F(x) in mathbb{R}^mathbb{R} : mbox{$F'$ exists and $F'(x) = f(x)$} right}$$.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
The_Sympathizer
7,3802244
7,3802244
+1 I thought about going to this level of sophistication in my much shorter answer but decided the OP needed just the central points I made. Now they can see both views.
– Ethan Bolker
3 hours ago
Very pedantic answer that is 100% valid and makes a distinction I had never thought about. +1 from me too. Heck, I'd give it a +5 if it was possible/allowed.
– JonathanZ
3 hours ago
I'm having a hard time understanding this, as I'm new to Calculus, but it's ok.
– clabe45
3 mins ago
add a comment |
+1 I thought about going to this level of sophistication in my much shorter answer but decided the OP needed just the central points I made. Now they can see both views.
– Ethan Bolker
3 hours ago
Very pedantic answer that is 100% valid and makes a distinction I had never thought about. +1 from me too. Heck, I'd give it a +5 if it was possible/allowed.
– JonathanZ
3 hours ago
I'm having a hard time understanding this, as I'm new to Calculus, but it's ok.
– clabe45
3 mins ago
+1 I thought about going to this level of sophistication in my much shorter answer but decided the OP needed just the central points I made. Now they can see both views.
– Ethan Bolker
3 hours ago
+1 I thought about going to this level of sophistication in my much shorter answer but decided the OP needed just the central points I made. Now they can see both views.
– Ethan Bolker
3 hours ago
Very pedantic answer that is 100% valid and makes a distinction I had never thought about. +1 from me too. Heck, I'd give it a +5 if it was possible/allowed.
– JonathanZ
3 hours ago
Very pedantic answer that is 100% valid and makes a distinction I had never thought about. +1 from me too. Heck, I'd give it a +5 if it was possible/allowed.
– JonathanZ
3 hours ago
I'm having a hard time understanding this, as I'm new to Calculus, but it's ok.
– clabe45
3 mins ago
I'm having a hard time understanding this, as I'm new to Calculus, but it's ok.
– clabe45
3 mins ago
add a comment |
That fixed but arbitrary lower limit is essentially the "arbitrary constant" you use when finding antiderivatives, because
$$
g(x) = int_a^x f(t), dt =
int_b^x f(t), dt +
int_a^b f(t), dt .
$$
The second term in that sum is just a number.
The fundamental theorem of calculus says that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$.
The "indefinite integral" with no limits specified refers to the whole set of antiderivatives, not any particular one of them.
I'm almost following what you're saying, but not quite. I understand that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$, but how does that make the constant integral the arbitrary constant?
– clabe45
1 hour ago
add a comment |
That fixed but arbitrary lower limit is essentially the "arbitrary constant" you use when finding antiderivatives, because
$$
g(x) = int_a^x f(t), dt =
int_b^x f(t), dt +
int_a^b f(t), dt .
$$
The second term in that sum is just a number.
The fundamental theorem of calculus says that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$.
The "indefinite integral" with no limits specified refers to the whole set of antiderivatives, not any particular one of them.
I'm almost following what you're saying, but not quite. I understand that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$, but how does that make the constant integral the arbitrary constant?
– clabe45
1 hour ago
add a comment |
That fixed but arbitrary lower limit is essentially the "arbitrary constant" you use when finding antiderivatives, because
$$
g(x) = int_a^x f(t), dt =
int_b^x f(t), dt +
int_a^b f(t), dt .
$$
The second term in that sum is just a number.
The fundamental theorem of calculus says that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$.
The "indefinite integral" with no limits specified refers to the whole set of antiderivatives, not any particular one of them.
That fixed but arbitrary lower limit is essentially the "arbitrary constant" you use when finding antiderivatives, because
$$
g(x) = int_a^x f(t), dt =
int_b^x f(t), dt +
int_a^b f(t), dt .
$$
The second term in that sum is just a number.
The fundamental theorem of calculus says that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$.
The "indefinite integral" with no limits specified refers to the whole set of antiderivatives, not any particular one of them.
answered 3 hours ago
Ethan Bolker
41.2k547108
41.2k547108
I'm almost following what you're saying, but not quite. I understand that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$, but how does that make the constant integral the arbitrary constant?
– clabe45
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I'm almost following what you're saying, but not quite. I understand that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$, but how does that make the constant integral the arbitrary constant?
– clabe45
1 hour ago
I'm almost following what you're saying, but not quite. I understand that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$, but how does that make the constant integral the arbitrary constant?
– clabe45
1 hour ago
I'm almost following what you're saying, but not quite. I understand that both integrals with upper limit $x$ have derivative $f$ with respect to $x$, but how does that make the constant integral the arbitrary constant?
– clabe45
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056882%2fcan-an-indefinite-integral-be-expressed-as-a-definite-integral-with-variable-bou%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The second representation is correct. The first one doesn't represent $g$ as a function of $x$.
– user23793
3 hours ago