Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (university level) Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please explain this one? Why does LHS = RHS?

    \displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial v} \int^v_u K(t, w) \mathrm{d}t = K(v, w)

    where u, v and w are functions of x.

    I know it's by the fundamental theorem, but I just don't get how it's done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You got happy because you got a response to your thread didn't you
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCurlyHairedDude)
    You got happy because you got a response to your thread didn't you
    No, I had a feeling it'd be a troll judging by your username, the time and the date.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swayum)
    No, I had a feeling it'd be a troll judging by your username, the time and the date.
    I've seriously no idea how you guys keep this stuff in your head though!?
    I mean, if that's not one of the hardest things ever, i'm not sure what is.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus states that \dfrac{d}{dx} \displaystyle \int^x_{x_0} f(t)\, dt = f(x), where x_0 is some constant. Here, since we're doing a partial derivative, we can write f(t) = K(t,w) for a particular value of w (which we're holding constant). Then if F(v) = \displaystyle \int_w^v f(t)\, dt, the partial derivative for the original integral (which depends on both v and w) is reduced to a total derivative of F (which has w held constant), and so the derivative is f(v). Since this is true for all values of w, this means the derivative is just equal to K(v,w).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by super.teve)
    I've seriously no idea how you guys keep this stuff in your head though!?
    I mean, if that's not one of the hardest things ever, i'm not sure what is.
    The notation makes it look a lot harder than it really is, to be honest. Imagine a 10 year old walking into a GCSE maths class - he'd find it impossible to comprehend, but in reality every 16 year old in UK is expected to be able to do it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swayum)
    The notation makes it look a lot harder than it really is, to be honest. Imagine a 10 year old walking into a GCSE maths class - he'd find it impossible to comprehend, but in reality every 16 year old in UK is expected to be able to do it.
    No seriously, this is out of my league, I can't comprehend it, I will never and I can't even begin to even look at it.
    You math dudes are serious hardcore absolute geniuses.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nuodai)
    The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus states that \dfrac{d}{dx} \displaystyle \int^x_{x_0} f(t)\, dt = f(x), where x_0 is some constant. Here, since we're doing a partial derivative, we can write f(t) = K(t,w) for a particular value of w (which we're holding constant). Then if F(v) = \displaystyle \int_w^v f(t)\, dt, the partial derivative for the original integral (which depends on both v and w) is reduced to a total derivative of F (which has w held constant), and so the derivative is f(v). Since this is true for all values of w, this means the derivative is just equal to K(v,w).
    Ah ok, thanks that makes sense. Do we not need to multiply by dv/dx as well though? Like, if we had

    \dfrac{d}{dx} \displaystyle \int^{g(x)}_{x_0} f(t)\, dt, then we should get f(g(x))g'(x) right?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swayum)
    Ah ok, thanks that makes sense. Do we not need to multiply by dv/dx as well though? Like, if we had

    \dfrac{d}{dx} \displaystyle \int^{g(x)}_{x_0} f(t)\, dt, then we should get f(g(x))g'(x) right?
    Why would you multiply by dv/dx when there is no mention of a variable, x, in the original integral?
    Also, v isn't a function, it's a variable so there wouldn't be a situation where you'd need to multiply by any additional derivatives. That's what makes it different to the example you've just posted, where the upper limit is g(x) i.e. a function.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
    Why would you multiply by dv/dx when there is no mention of a variable, x, in the original integral?
    Also, v isn't a function, it's a variable so there wouldn't be a situation where you'd need to multiply by any additional derivatives.
    As stated in the original post, u, v and w are functions of x...

    I think the point is that you're multiplying by dv/dv = 1, so there's no point writing it, but I wanted confirmation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swayum)
    As stated in the original post, u, v and w are functions of x...

    I think the point is that you're multiplying by dv/dv = 1, so there's no point writing it, but I wanted confirmation.
    Yes. What you wrote was right. (Well, getting f(g(x))g'(x))
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.