Silly question. Can someone show me a nice easy to follow proof on the fundamental theorem of calculus. More specifically,

$\displaystyle\int_{a}^{b}f(x)dx = F(b) - F(a)$

I know that by just googling fundamental theorem of calculus, one can get all sorts of answers, but for some odd reason I have a hard time following the arguments.

  • $\begingroup$ Are you familiar with the Riemann sum definition of the integral? $\endgroup$
    – user99914
    May 2 '15 at 2:24
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ There is no real easy proof of this, it's a deep fact. The best intuition is to think of the anti-derivative as keeping a running sum of the accumulation of the area, where the sum is taken to the limit. $\endgroup$ May 2 '15 at 2:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What conditions do you want on $f$? $\endgroup$
    – Chappers
    May 2 '15 at 2:36

To understand this you will also need to understand the first FTC, and I will show you this. (As you said there may be more than one proof, I will base mine off one similar given in the stewart calculus books).

You may notice during the proof of the first already the connectedness to the derivative which I assume you are familiar with.

$\mathbf{FTC 1:}$ If $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$ then the function g defined by

$g(x)= \int_{a}^{x} f(t)dt$ for $a \le x \le b$ is continuos on $[a,b]$ and differentiable on $(a,b)$ , and $g'(x)=f(x)$.


Suppose we have $x$ and $x+h$ in $(a,b)$, then we have

$$g(x+h)-g(x)= \int_{a}^{x+h}f(t)dt-\int_{a}^{x}f(t)dt$$ $$=\int_{a}^{x}f(t)dt+\int_{x}^{x+h}f(t)dt-\int_{a}^{x}f(t)dt$$


Thus, we have for $h \neq 0$


If we assume $h \gt 0$ , since f is continuous on $[x,x+h]$ the "Extreme Value Theorem" says that there exists some numbers, u and v in the closed interval $[x,x+h]$ such that $f(u)=m$ and and $f(v)=M$ where $m$ and $M$ represent the inf and sup of the interval respectively.

Thus, by further properties of Riemann integral

$$mh \le \int_{x}^{x+h}f(t)dt \le Mh$$


$$f(u)h \le \int_{x}^{x+h}f(t)dt \le f(v)h$$


$$f(u) \le \frac{1}{h} \int_{x}^{x+h}f(t)dt \le f(v)$$


$$f(u) \le \frac{g(x+h)-g(x)}{h} \le f(v)$$

( If $h \lt 0$ the same argument can be repeated with small changes)

so now we invoke limits,

Let $h \to 0$ , then you can see that $u \to x$ and $v \to x$ , ( it is clear from the interval they are in).

So both sides limits are the same, thus the limit exists and we have,

$$g'(x)=\lim_{h \to 0} \frac{g(x+h)-g(x)}{h}=f(x)$$

thus , we finally have $$\frac{d}{dx}\int_{a}^{x}f(t)dt=f(x)$$

$\mathbf{FTC2:}$ If f is continuous on $[a,b]$, then $\int_{a}^{b}f(x)dx=F(b)-F(a)$, where F is any antiderivative of f, that is $F'=f$.


Let $g(x)= \int_{a}^{x}f(t)dt$, then from FTC1 we have that $g'(x)=f(x)$

That is, g is an anti derivative of f. Now, if there is another antideravative of f, say F , on the same closed interval [a,b] then we know the only difference they can have is a constant,


Consider $g(a)=\int_{a}^{a}f(t)dt=0$

Now consider,


$$=g(b)-g(a)=g(b)$$ $$= \int_{a}^{b} f(t)dt$$


The key fact is that, if $f$ is continuous, the function $G(x)=\int_a^xf(t)\,dt$ is an antiderivative for $f$. For this, $$ \frac1h\,\left(\int_a^{x+h}f(t)\,dt-\int_a^xf(t)\,dt\right) =\frac1h\,\int_x^{x+h}f(t)\,dt\xrightarrow[h\to0]{}f(x). $$ The justification of the limit basically plays on the fact that $f$ is continuous. A formal proof requires dealing with the formal definition of continuity. Namely, given $\varepsilon>0$ by definition of continuity there exists $\delta>0$ such that $|f(x)-f(t)|<\varepsilon$ whenever $|x-y|<\delta$. If we choose $h<\delta$, then $|f(t)-f(x)|<\varepsilon$ for all $t\in [x,x+h]$. Then \begin{align} f(x)&=\frac1h\int_x^{x+h}f(x)\,dt\leq\frac1h\int_x^{x+h}(\varepsilon +f(t))\,dt=\varepsilon + \frac1h\int_x^{x+h}f(t)\,dt\\[0.3cm] &\leq2\varepsilon + \frac1h\int_x^{x+h}f(t)\,dt=2\varepsilon+f(x). \end{align} Thus $$ f(x)-\varepsilon\leq \frac1h\int_x^{x+h}f(t)\,dt\leq f(x)+\varepsilon, $$ showing the convergence.

Now $G(a)=0$, and $G(b)-G(a)=G(b)=\int_a^bf(t)\,dt$. If $F$ is any other antiderivative of $f$, we have $F'=f=G'$, so $(G-F)'=G'-F'=0$, i .e. $G(x)-F(x)=c$ for some constant. That is, $F(x)=G(x)-c$. Then $$ F(b)-F(a)=(G(b)-c)-(G(a)-c)=G(b)-G(a)=\int_a^bf(t)\,dt. $$


i will assume that $f$ is continuous, $F$ is differentiable in $(a,b)$ and $$F'(x)=f(x). $$ we will need the mean value theorem in the form $$\text{ for any } a \le c, d < \le b,\quad F(d) - F(c) = (d-c)F'(t) = (d-c)f(t) \text{ for some } c < t < d.$$

let $a \le x_0 \le x_1\le \cdots\le x_n = b$ any partition of $[a, b].$ then $$\begin{align}F(b) - F(a) &= \left(F(x_n) - F(x_{n-1}\right) + \cdots +\left(F(x_j) - F(x_{j-1}\right)+\cdots+\left(F(x_1) - F(x_{0}\right)\\ &=(x_n-x_{n-1})f(t_n)+\cdots+(x_j-x_{j-1})f(t_j)+\cdots+(x_1-x_0)f(t_1)\\ &=\int_a^bf(x)\, dx.\end{align} $$

  • $\begingroup$ I think you will need a bit more justification in the last line. What you have shown is that if $P$ is any partition of $[a, b]$ then $F(b) - F(a)$ can be regarded as a Riemann Sum of $f$ over $[a, b]$. But a Riemann Sum is not necessary equal to Riemann integral. In this case since $F(b) - F(a)$ is a Riemann for every partition $P$, it follows that it lies between every lower darboux sum and every upper darboux sum and since $f$ is integrable, $F(b) - F(a)$ is the unique limit of lower and upper darboux sum and therefore is the Riemann integral of $f$ over $[a, b]$. $\endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh
    May 3 '15 at 9:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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