What's the derivative of $int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$?











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



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Ryk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
    – T. Bongers
    Dec 2 at 23:51








  • 4




    Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
    – littleO
    Dec 2 at 23:55










  • $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
    – Ryk
    Dec 2 at 23:58

















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



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Ryk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
    – T. Bongers
    Dec 2 at 23:51








  • 4




    Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
    – littleO
    Dec 2 at 23:55










  • $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
    – Ryk
    Dec 2 at 23:58















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



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Ryk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











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






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Ryk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Ryk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 3 at 8:47









Asaf Karagila

300k32422751




300k32422751






New contributor




Ryk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Dec 2 at 23:49









Ryk

163




163




New contributor




Ryk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Ryk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Ryk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
    – T. Bongers
    Dec 2 at 23:51








  • 4




    Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
    – littleO
    Dec 2 at 23:55










  • $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
    – Ryk
    Dec 2 at 23:58




















  • Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
    – T. Bongers
    Dec 2 at 23:51








  • 4




    Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
    – littleO
    Dec 2 at 23:55










  • $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
    – Ryk
    Dec 2 at 23:58


















Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
Dec 2 at 23:51






Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
Dec 2 at 23:51






4




4




Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
Dec 2 at 23:55




Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
Dec 2 at 23:55












$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
Dec 2 at 23:58






$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
Dec 2 at 23:58












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
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 $f$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Very nce as usual! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:49


















up vote
4
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.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Very nice (+1).
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00










  • 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
    Dec 3 at 0:06










  • @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
    Dec 3 at 2:32


















up vote
1
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



$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • +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
    Dec 2 at 23:59












  • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00






  • 3




    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
    Dec 3 at 0:00












  • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02






  • 1




    @YiFan Exactly! I think that it is a important reference to keep in mind.All other answers are also very useful to give a full picture for the OP. Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:52


















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 $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • What happens when a is not zero then ?
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:11










  • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:45










  • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:46











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',
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
});


}
});






Ryk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023387%2fwhats-the-derivative-of-int-0x-et2-dt%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
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 $f$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Very nce as usual! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:49















up vote
3
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 $f$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Very nce as usual! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:49













up vote
3
down vote



accepted







up vote
3
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 $f$.






share|cite|improve this answer














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 $f$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 3 at 1:40

























answered Dec 3 at 1:31









Paramanand Singh

48.5k555156




48.5k555156












  • Very nce as usual! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:49


















  • Very nce as usual! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:49
















Very nce as usual! (+1)
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 7:49




Very nce as usual! (+1)
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 7:49










up vote
4
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.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Very nice (+1).
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00










  • 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
    Dec 3 at 0:06










  • @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
    Dec 3 at 2:32















up vote
4
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.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Very nice (+1).
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00










  • 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
    Dec 3 at 0:06










  • @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
    Dec 3 at 2:32













up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
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.






share|cite|improve this answer












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.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 2 at 23:57









copper.hat

125k559159




125k559159








  • 1




    Very nice (+1).
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00










  • 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
    Dec 3 at 0:06










  • @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
    Dec 3 at 2:32














  • 1




    Very nice (+1).
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00










  • 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
    Dec 3 at 0:06










  • @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
    Dec 3 at 2:32








1




1




Very nice (+1).
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:00




Very nice (+1).
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:00












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
Dec 3 at 0:06




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
Dec 3 at 0:06












@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
Dec 3 at 2:32




@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
Dec 3 at 2:32










up vote
1
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



$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • +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
    Dec 2 at 23:59












  • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00






  • 3




    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
    Dec 3 at 0:00












  • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02






  • 1




    @YiFan Exactly! I think that it is a important reference to keep in mind.All other answers are also very useful to give a full picture for the OP. Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:52















up vote
1
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



$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • +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
    Dec 2 at 23:59












  • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00






  • 3




    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
    Dec 3 at 0:00












  • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02






  • 1




    @YiFan Exactly! I think that it is a important reference to keep in mind.All other answers are also very useful to give a full picture for the OP. Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:52













up vote
1
down vote










up vote
1
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



$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$






share|cite|improve this answer












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



$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 2 at 23:51









gimusi

90.7k74495




90.7k74495












  • +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
    Dec 2 at 23:59












  • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00






  • 3




    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
    Dec 3 at 0:00












  • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02






  • 1




    @YiFan Exactly! I think that it is a important reference to keep in mind.All other answers are also very useful to give a full picture for the OP. Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:52


















  • +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
    Dec 2 at 23:59












  • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:00






  • 3




    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
    Dec 3 at 0:00












  • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02






  • 1




    @YiFan Exactly! I think that it is a important reference to keep in mind.All other answers are also very useful to give a full picture for the OP. Bye
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 7:52
















+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
Dec 2 at 23:59






+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
Dec 2 at 23:59














@the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:00




@the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:00




3




3




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
Dec 3 at 0:00






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
Dec 3 at 0:00














@Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:02




@Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:02




1




1




@YiFan Exactly! I think that it is a important reference to keep in mind.All other answers are also very useful to give a full picture for the OP. Bye
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 7:52




@YiFan Exactly! I think that it is a important reference to keep in mind.All other answers are also very useful to give a full picture for the OP. Bye
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 7:52










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 $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • What happens when a is not zero then ?
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:11










  • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:45










  • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:46















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 $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • What happens when a is not zero then ?
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:11










  • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:45










  • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:46













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 $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.






share|cite|improve this answer














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 $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 3 at 0:10

























answered Dec 2 at 23:59









Taladris

4,63731832




4,63731832












  • What happens when a is not zero then ?
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:11










  • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:45










  • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:46


















  • What happens when a is not zero then ?
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:02










  • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
    – gimusi
    Dec 3 at 0:11










  • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:45










  • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
    – Ryk
    Dec 3 at 0:46
















What happens when a is not zero then ?
– Ryk
Dec 3 at 0:02




What happens when a is not zero then ?
– Ryk
Dec 3 at 0:02












Nice and simple approach! (+1)
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:02




Nice and simple approach! (+1)
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:02












@Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:11




@Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
– gimusi
Dec 3 at 0:11












Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
– Ryk
Dec 3 at 0:45




Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
– Ryk
Dec 3 at 0:45












@gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
– Ryk
Dec 3 at 0:46




@gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
– Ryk
Dec 3 at 0:46










Ryk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023387%2fwhats-the-derivative-of-int-0x-et2-dt%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

How did Captain America manage to do this?

迪纳利

南乌拉尔铁路局