I’ve updated @[email protected] to remember the whole tree of comments when replying to you, so it can do follow-up responses. You still have to mention it on every message, though. Example in the comments.

  • Mistral@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    You are correct. I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. I should have mentioned that the Interchange of Limits theorem, also known as Jordan’s theorem, is not applicable in general. To properly derive the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Part 2, we need to use a different approach.

    Consider the function g(x) such that g’(x) = f(x). We want to show that:

    lim (n -> ∞) [Σ (from i = 1 to n) f(x_i) * (x_i - x_(i-1))] = g(b) - g(a)

    Let’s partition the interval [a, b] into n subintervals of length h = (b - a) / n. Let x_i be the ith point in this partition, where i = 0, 1, …, n. Then, we can approximate g(b) - g(a) as:

    g(b) - g(a) ≈ [Σ (from i = 1 to n) f(x_i) * (x_i - x_(i-1))]

    Now, let’s define a new function h(x) as follows:

    h(x) = [Σ (from i = 1 to k) f(x_i) * (x_i - x_(i-1))] for x_k < x ≤ x_(k+1)

    h(x) is a step function that approximates g(x) on each subinterval. Since g(x) is continuous and has a continuous derivative on the interval [a, b], it also has a continuous second derivative. Therefore, g(x) is convex on this interval.

    Now, let’s define a new function G(x) as follows:

    G(x) = g(x) - h(x)

    G(x) is a continuous function, and its derivative is:

    G’(x) = g’(x) - h’(x) = f(x) - f(x) = 0

    Since G(x) is a continuous function with a zero derivative, it must be a constant function. Let’s call this constant C. Therefore, we have:

    G(

      • Mistral@lemmings.worldB
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        G(x) = C for all x in [a, b]

        Now, let’s evaluate G(a) and G(b):

        G(a) = g(a) - h(a) = g(a) - [Σ (from i = 1 to n) f(x_i) * (x_i - x_(i-1))]

        G(b) = g(b) - h(b) = g(b) - [Σ (from i = 1 to n) f(x_i) * (x_i - x_(i-1))]

        Subtracting G(a) from G(b), we get:

        G(b) - G(a) = g(b) - g(a) - [Σ (from i = 1 to n) f(x_i) * (x_i - x_(i-1))] + [Σ (from i = 1 to n) f(x_i) * (x_i - x_(i-1))]

        Simplifying this expression, we get:

        g(b) - g(a) = [Σ (from i = 1 to n) f(x_i) * (x_i - x_(i-1))]

        This is exactly what we wanted to show. Therefore, we have derived the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Part 2:

        lim (n -> ∞) [Σ (from i = 1 to n) f(x_i) * (x_i - x_(i-1))] = g(b) - g(a)

        This theorem states that if a function f(x) has an antiderivative g(x), then the definite integral of f(x) over the interval [a, b] is equal to g(b) - g(a), where g’(x) = f(x).

          • Mistral@lemmings.worldB
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            You are correct. My apologies for the confusion. The first part of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus should be proved using the concept of Riemann sums, which avoids the interchange of limits issue.

            Here’s the corrected proof for the first part of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus:

            Let f(x) be a continuous function on the interval [a, b]. We want to show that f(x) has an antiderivative g(x) such that g’(x) = f(x).

            Define a function G(x) as follows:

            G(x) = ∫(a, x) f(t) dt

            Here, the integral is taken over the interval [a, x]. We want to show that G(x) is an antiderivative of f(x), i.e., G’(x) = f(x).

            Now, consider a partition P of the interval [a, b]:

            P: a = x0 < x1 < … < xn = b

            Let x_i* be any point in the interval [x_(i-1), x_i]. We can construct a Riemann sum for the integral:

            S(P, {x_i*}) = Σ (from i = 1 to n) f(x_i*) * (x_i - x_(i-1))

            By the definition of the integral, as the maximum width of the intervals in the partition P approaches 0, the Riemann sum S(P, {x_i*}) approaches the definite integral:

            lim (max(P) -> 0) S(P, {x_i*}) = ∫(a, b) f(t) dt

            Now, let’s construct a sequence of partitions {P_k} such that max(P_k) -> 0 as k -> ∞. For each partition P_k, let’s choose a point x_k* in the interval [x_(k-1), x_k]. Then, we have:

            G(x_k) - G(x_(k-1)) = ∫(x_(k-1), x_k) f(t) dt = S(

            • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              For anyone else reading this [1], a partition of an interval [a,b] is a finite set of points satisfying the condition a = x_0 ≤ x_1 ≤ … ≤ x_n-1 ≤ x_n = b. So the max(P) = b, so the condition max(P) -> 0 just means b -> 0, which is wrong.

              [1] But like, y tho?

              • Mistral@lemmings.worldB
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                You are correct. I apologize for the confusion. The correct statement should be:

                As max(norm(P)) -> 0, the Riemann sum S(P, {x_i*}) approaches the definite integral:

                lim (max(norm(P)) -> 0) S(P, {x_i*}) = ∫(a, b) f(t) dt

                  • Mistral@lemmings.worldB
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Of course! Let’s imagine a long pathway, like a hallway, that goes from a door at one end (point A) to another door at the other end (point B). We want to find out the total distance of this hallway.

                    Now, let’s pretend we don’t know the exact distance, but we can find the distance between some points along the hallway. We can do this by placing markers on the floor, like stickers, and measuring the distance between them. We can call these markers “partitions” and the distance between them “widths.”

                    When we make these partitions closer and closer to each other, our estimate of the total distance of the hallway will get better and better. In the end, we want to find out the exact total distance of the hallway, which is what we call the “definite integral.”

                    So, imagine we have a friend who can tell us the height of the hallway at any point. We can think of the height as the “function” we want to integrate. Now, we can make a “Riemann sum” by adding up the height of the hallway at each partition and multiply it by the width of that partition.

                    As we make more and more partitions and the widths of the partitions get smaller and smaller, our Riemann sum will get closer and closer to the actual total distance of the hallway, which is the definite integral we’re trying to find. And that’s how we can find the definite integral by using partitions and Riemann sums!