What's the derivative of an integral?
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by
$$ mathcal F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$
is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative
$$mathcal F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$
My question is the following: What will happen in this case?
$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$$
Would the derivative be:
$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}$$
or
$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$
calculus
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by
$$ mathcal F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$
is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative
$$mathcal F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$
My question is the following: What will happen in this case?
$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$$
Would the derivative be:
$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}$$
or
$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$
calculus
New contributor
Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
3 hours ago
2
Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
3 hours ago
$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by
$$ mathcal F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$
is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative
$$mathcal F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$
My question is the following: What will happen in this case?
$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$$
Would the derivative be:
$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}$$
or
$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$
calculus
New contributor
Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by
$$ mathcal F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$
is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative
$$mathcal F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$
My question is the following: What will happen in this case?
$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$$
Would the derivative be:
$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}$$
or
$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$
calculus
calculus
New contributor
New contributor
edited 3 hours ago
Toby Mak
3,32811128
3,32811128
New contributor
asked 3 hours ago
Ryk
132
132
New contributor
New contributor
Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
3 hours ago
2
Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
3 hours ago
$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
3 hours ago
2
Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
3 hours ago
$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
3 hours ago
Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
3 hours ago
Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
3 hours ago
2
2
Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
3 hours ago
Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
3 hours ago
$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
3 hours ago
$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
3 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).
Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.
You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.
Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.
Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.
It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.
1
Very nice (+1).
– gimusi
3 hours ago
You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
– Ryk
3 hours ago
@Ryk: You are trying to compute the limit as $h to 0$ of ${F(x+h)-F(x) over h}$. The above does is not divided across by $h$.
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:
Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by
$$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$
is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative
$$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$
For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.
It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.
Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.
Edit: to answer a comment
What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?
Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have
$$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$
Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that
$$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$
where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.
What happens when a is not zero then ?
– Ryk
3 hours ago
Nice and simple approach! (+1)
– gimusi
3 hours ago
@Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
– Ryk
2 hours ago
@gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
– Ryk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds
$$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$
therefore
$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$
+1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
– the_candyman
3 hours ago
@the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
– gimusi
3 hours ago
1
That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
– Taladris
3 hours ago
@Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).
Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.
You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.
Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.
Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).
Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.
You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.
Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.
Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).
Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.
You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.
Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.
Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.
If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).
Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.
You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.
Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.
Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Paramanand Singh
48.4k555156
48.4k555156
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.
It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.
1
Very nice (+1).
– gimusi
3 hours ago
You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
– Ryk
3 hours ago
@Ryk: You are trying to compute the limit as $h to 0$ of ${F(x+h)-F(x) over h}$. The above does is not divided across by $h$.
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.
It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.
1
Very nice (+1).
– gimusi
3 hours ago
You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
– Ryk
3 hours ago
@Ryk: You are trying to compute the limit as $h to 0$ of ${F(x+h)-F(x) over h}$. The above does is not divided across by $h$.
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.
It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.
Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.
It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.
answered 3 hours ago
copper.hat
125k559159
125k559159
1
Very nice (+1).
– gimusi
3 hours ago
You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
– Ryk
3 hours ago
@Ryk: You are trying to compute the limit as $h to 0$ of ${F(x+h)-F(x) over h}$. The above does is not divided across by $h$.
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
Very nice (+1).
– gimusi
3 hours ago
You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
– Ryk
3 hours ago
@Ryk: You are trying to compute the limit as $h to 0$ of ${F(x+h)-F(x) over h}$. The above does is not divided across by $h$.
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
1
1
Very nice (+1).
– gimusi
3 hours ago
Very nice (+1).
– gimusi
3 hours ago
You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
– Ryk
3 hours ago
You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
– Ryk
3 hours ago
@Ryk: You are trying to compute the limit as $h to 0$ of ${F(x+h)-F(x) over h}$. The above does is not divided across by $h$.
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
@Ryk: You are trying to compute the limit as $h to 0$ of ${F(x+h)-F(x) over h}$. The above does is not divided across by $h$.
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:
Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by
$$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$
is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative
$$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$
For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.
It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.
Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.
Edit: to answer a comment
What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?
Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have
$$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$
Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that
$$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$
where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.
What happens when a is not zero then ?
– Ryk
3 hours ago
Nice and simple approach! (+1)
– gimusi
3 hours ago
@Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
– Ryk
2 hours ago
@gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
– Ryk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:
Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by
$$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$
is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative
$$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$
For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.
It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.
Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.
Edit: to answer a comment
What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?
Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have
$$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$
Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that
$$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$
where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.
What happens when a is not zero then ?
– Ryk
3 hours ago
Nice and simple approach! (+1)
– gimusi
3 hours ago
@Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
– Ryk
2 hours ago
@gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
– Ryk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:
Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by
$$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$
is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative
$$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$
For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.
It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.
Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.
Edit: to answer a comment
What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?
Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have
$$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$
Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that
$$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$
where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.
The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:
Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by
$$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$
is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative
$$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$
For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.
It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.
Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.
Edit: to answer a comment
What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?
Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have
$$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$
Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that
$$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$
where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Taladris
4,63731832
4,63731832
What happens when a is not zero then ?
– Ryk
3 hours ago
Nice and simple approach! (+1)
– gimusi
3 hours ago
@Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
– Ryk
2 hours ago
@gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
– Ryk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
What happens when a is not zero then ?
– Ryk
3 hours ago
Nice and simple approach! (+1)
– gimusi
3 hours ago
@Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
– Ryk
2 hours ago
@gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
– Ryk
2 hours ago
What happens when a is not zero then ?
– Ryk
3 hours ago
What happens when a is not zero then ?
– Ryk
3 hours ago
Nice and simple approach! (+1)
– gimusi
3 hours ago
Nice and simple approach! (+1)
– gimusi
3 hours ago
@Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
@Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
– Ryk
2 hours ago
Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
– Ryk
2 hours ago
@gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
– Ryk
2 hours ago
@gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
– Ryk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds
$$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$
therefore
$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$
+1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
– the_candyman
3 hours ago
@the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
– gimusi
3 hours ago
1
That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
– Taladris
3 hours ago
@Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds
$$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$
therefore
$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$
+1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
– the_candyman
3 hours ago
@the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
– gimusi
3 hours ago
1
That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
– Taladris
3 hours ago
@Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds
$$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$
therefore
$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$
Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds
$$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$
therefore
$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$
answered 3 hours ago
gimusi
89.1k74495
89.1k74495
+1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
– the_candyman
3 hours ago
@the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
– gimusi
3 hours ago
1
That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
– Taladris
3 hours ago
@Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
+1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
– the_candyman
3 hours ago
@the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
– gimusi
3 hours ago
1
That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
– Taladris
3 hours ago
@Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
+1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
– the_candyman
3 hours ago
+1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
– the_candyman
3 hours ago
@the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
– gimusi
3 hours ago
@the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
– gimusi
3 hours ago
1
1
That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
– Taladris
3 hours ago
That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
– Taladris
3 hours ago
@Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
@Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
– gimusi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Ryk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ryk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ryk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ryk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f3023387%2fwhats-the-derivative-of-an-integral%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
Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
3 hours ago
2
Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
3 hours ago
$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
3 hours ago