Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 4 down vote favorite

I am reading Rudin's proof (3rd edition) and am wondering what substitution is made to make it true that $P_n(x)=$ the integral from $-x$ to $1-x$ is equal to the same function integrated from -1 to 1. He says there's a substitution but I haven't found the right one. Thanks a lot

share|improve this question
I do not have Rudin's book right now, but I'd suggest an affine change of variable: $x \mapsto \alpha x + \beta$. – Siminore Aug 7 '12 at 8:14

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote

(Edit after a comment by Kirk Boyer) The formula in question is $$P_n(x):=\int_{-1}^1 f(x+t)Q_n(t)\ dt=\int_{-x}^{1-x}f(x+t)Q_n(t)\ dt=\int_0^1f(t)Q_n(t-x)\ dt\ .$$ One obtains the second integral on account of the assumption that $f(t)$ is $\equiv0$ outside $[0,1]$, the third integral substituting $t:=t'-x$ $\,(0\leq t'\leq1)$, and finally writing again $t$ in place of $t'$.

share|improve this answer
Actually, Rudin first defines $P_{n}(x) := \int_{-1}^{1}f(x+t)Q_{n}(t)dt$, for $0\leq x \leq 1$. He then says "Our assumptions about $f$ show, by a simple change of variable, that $P_{n}(x) = \int_{-x}^{1-x}f(x+t)Q_{n}(t)dt = \dots$", as your formula begins. It isn't clear to me how he arrives at that first integral in your formula; the second substitution is clear. – Kirk Boyer Dec 23 '12 at 17:59
@Kirk Boyer: See my edit. – Christian Blatter Dec 23 '12 at 18:44
Somehow I didn't see how that worked, before, but it is clear now. – Kirk Boyer Dec 23 '12 at 18:51

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.