Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Here is a proof of integration by parts: http://www.math.ufl.edu/~mathguy/year/S10/int_by_parts.pdf

But I don't understand how it works. Specifically, I don't understand why $\int_r^s u \, dv$ equals one of the areas (and likewise for $\int_p^q v \, du$).

To me it looks like this only works if $g$ is the inverse of $f$...

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
I share your opinion. To me this picture looks more like a proof of Young's inequality(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_inequality) –  Dominik Dec 9 '12 at 1:08
add comment

5 Answers

The important part is that the axes themselves are the original $x,y$ axes after applying the functions $u$ and $v$ to them!

Perhaps this diagram from here is clearer. Because $u=f(v)$ is the height of the curve from the $v$ axis, the area of the bottom part is $\displaystyle \int_{v_1}^{v_2}u \space d v$. But note that $u_1=f(v_1),u_2=f(v_2)$.

Next, let the $v$ values change. Now $v$ is the height of the curve from the $u$ axis, the area of the top part is $\displaystyle \int_{u_1}^{u_2}v \space d u$.

The sum of these areas is a nice difference of areas of boxes. I.e. $u_2v_2-u_1v_1$. This is however the $uv|_{(v_1,u_1)}^{(v_2,u_2)}$. So, symbolically

$\displaystyle \int_{v_1}^{v_2}u \space d v +\int_{u_1}^{u_2}v \space d u=uv|_{(v_1,u_1)}^{(v_2,u_2)}$.

share|improve this answer
    
I think you're onto it here. Am I going the wrong direction with the bottom half of my answer, or is it in agreement with yours? –  000 Dec 8 '12 at 23:51
    
I think we agree. Except, you probably meant to name the map that you define in the second paragraph of your second section as $f$ and not $v$. This way, as Hagen von Eitzen describes below, $f$ is the curve parametrizing $u$ and $v$ as a function of $t$ varying between the original bounds of integration $a$ and $b$ –  Ravi Donepudi Dec 9 '12 at 0:09
1  
I removed the original variables in the situation and restructured it in terms of axis $u$ and axis $v(u)$. Thus, I think, my work also coincides with Hagen von Eitzen since I've said $u=f(x_0)$ for some $x_0$ and $v(u)=g(x_1)$ for some $x_1$. It may be easier to say $(u,v(u))=(f(t),g(t))$, though. –  000 Dec 9 '12 at 0:16
add comment

The black curve should be viewed as parametric curve $(f(t),g(t))$, $a\le t\le b$.

share|improve this answer
    
I tried viewing like that, but I still don't understand. –  dever Dec 8 '12 at 23:04
    
Maybe you prefer the proof by observing that the derivative of $uv$ is $uv'+u'v$. –  Hagen von Eitzen Dec 8 '12 at 23:09
    
Well, I know that proof, but I want to understand this proof. –  dever Dec 8 '12 at 23:11
add comment

If we play around with the graph in our head, we can look at it from two perspectives: $(U,V(U))$ and $(V,U(V))$. That is, if we look at it from how it is presented, we see that the area of the second box in the equation is $\int_{p}^{q}V(U)dU.$ In their notation, that's exactly $\int_{p}^{q}vdu$. This follows from the definition of a definite integral.

Now, if we flip the graph (turn your head sideways), reflect it to the left, and look at it from the perspective of $(V,U(V))$, we see that the area underneath the flipped curve is $\int_{r}^{s}U(V)dV$. This is, in their notation, $\int_{r}^{s}udv$.

This is why we have that the total sum of the areas is $\int_{r}^{s}udv+\int_{p}^{q}vdu.$


There is not a loss of rigor what so ever in this diagram. It is quite unsettling at first, but what we're really just doing is this:

Let $v: U \to V$ be a map where, for a $u \in U$, we have $u \mapsto v(u)$. The domain and range thus form the set of ordered pairs $\{(u,v(u)): u\in U\}$. Our other map, $v^{-1}:V \to U$, is the flip-then-reflect-left map with the mapping $v(u) \mapsto u$. It is the set of ordered pairs $\{(v(u),u): u\in U\}$. This is the inverse map of $v$ by definition.

Having that $u=f(x_0)$ for some $x_0$ and $v(u)=g(x_1)$ for some $x_1$, however, does not necessarily imply $g$ is the inverse of $f$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The area between the curves and the axes adds together to give the area of the rectangle with area $qs$, with the square of area $pr$. So subtract the two areas and set them equal to the sum of the integrals. Thank you for this proof, I really like it!

share|improve this answer
add comment

He used the formula that the area of a region under the curve $y=g(x),x=v(x)$ is equal to $\int_{C} xdy=\int_{C}vdu$. This is from Green's formula. See this wikipedia article. Since the derivation of Green's formula does not involve integration by parts, this is a "proof without words".

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.