Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider $f(x,y)=y^3e^{-y^2x}$ and define $F(y) =\int_0^{\infty}f(x,y)dx$

We have that $F'(0)\not = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}(x,0)dx$

in the spoiler there is how I got this, in case I made a mistake there

We calculate $F'(0)$ essentially using Monotone convergence theorem we can show that, for $y\in \mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\} $, $F(y)=y$ moreover $F(0)=0$ so $F'(0)=1$

Now, I want to understand which hypothesis of Theorem 2 at this page does not hold. Instead of the third hypothesys at the link, though, I use this weacker hypothesis, which is still enough:

"For each $b \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists an open interval $b\in J$ and an integrable function over $(0, \infty)$ , $g(x)$ such that $| \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}(x,y)| \leq g(x)$ for every $y\in J$ and $\forall x$"

Now, the first hypothesis certainly holds as $\forall y, \ x\rightarrow f(x,y)$ is integrable $(0,\infty)$ by comparison with $e^{-kx}$ for appropriate positive value of $k$

Moreover $ \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}(x,y)$ exists everywhere...

So is the last hypothesis to be problematic but I can't see how as I can bound $y$ in $J$ and then just use some linear combination of $e^{-kx}$ and $ xe^{-lx}$ for suitable $k,l$ as they are both integrable over $(0,\infty)$...

Thank you very much!

share|cite|improve this question

The theorem says if you can bound $f_y(x,y)$ with an integrable function $g(x)$, that is $$ |f_y(x,y)|\leq |g(x)|, $$ then you can change the order of differentiation and integration.

share|cite|improve this answer
yes but I think you can weacken this condition by bounding $f_y$, for each $b \in \mathbb{R}$ on an open interval containing $b$ (and for all values of x)! – Moritzplatz Dec 14 '12 at 16:13
or do you think I can just say that my $f$ does not respect this condition and hence why the theorem doesn't work? it feels like cheating! – Moritzplatz Dec 14 '12 at 16:50
any idea? the theorem I refer to is not the one you quote but more similar to Theorem 3 in this page – Moritzplatz Dec 14 '12 at 17:31
@Moritz See this answer of Qiaochu for a very general statement. – Willie Wong Feb 21 '13 at 9:41

Your Answer


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.