I am struggling with assessing the validity of this statement.

$$\int ^{x}_{a}f'\left( t\right) dt \neq f\left( x\right) $$

I can understand that the left side yields a class of functions $F(x)$ whose derivative is $f(x)$, but doesn't that mean that the left side evaluates to $f(x) + C$ and that constant pairs with whatever constant exists in the original $f(x)$? For example, if $f(x)=2x+6$ then the antiderivative is $2x + C$ but $C$ here is just $6$, right? So doesn't the equality hold?


Assuming $f$ is differentiable, then the fundamental theorem of calculus says

$$\int_3^xf'(s) \, ds=f(x)-f(3)$$

Hence, unless $f(3)=0$, the integral expression is not $f(x)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! This makes a lot of sense. I didn't think to be looking at FTC part 2. $\endgroup$
    – rb612
    Dec 21 '16 at 4:53
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ To be pedantic, it's not enough just to assume that $f'$ exists. (Counterexample: Volterra's function, mentioned already in another comment.) One must also assume that $f'$ is integrable. $\endgroup$ Dec 21 '16 at 8:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You might want to change the integration variable from $x$ to anything else. $\endgroup$
    – gented
    Dec 21 '16 at 10:12
  • $\begingroup$ @HansLundmark - to be more pendantic, you are assuming the question is about Riemann integrability, which is not stated. If $f'$ exists, then it is automatically Henstock-Kurzweil integrable. $\endgroup$ Dec 21 '16 at 17:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TheGreatDuck - "Integration" is not a technique for finding anti-derivatives. It is a concept in and of itself. The FTC proves that you can use anti-derivatives to find the values of integrals and use integrals to find anti-derivatives, but many functions are integrable that do not meet the demands of the FTC and so cannot be determined from anti-derivatives. The theory of integration is far larger than anti-derivatives. The statement in the post is not about anti-derivatives, it is about integration, and so the method of integration determines whether it is true. $\endgroup$ Dec 22 '16 at 3:51

Actually, I disagree with your statement 'the left side yields...'

You are talking about indefinite integrals, but here you have a definite integral. In particular, you have $$ \int_3^x f'(x)\,dx=g(x)-g(3), $$ where $g$ is any antiderivative of $f'(x)$. In particular, we know that all antiderivatives of $f'(x)$ are of the form $f(x)+C$ for some constant $C$, so that $$ \int_3^x f'(x)\,dx=[f(x)+C]-[f(3)+C]=f(x)-f(3). $$ So, your question boils down to this: is $f(x)=f(x)-f(3)$ true for all $x$? The answer will depend on the particular value that your function $f$ assigns to the input $3$.

  • $\begingroup$ Ah this makes a lot of sense! What if the left side was instead the indefinite integral? $\endgroup$
    – rb612
    Dec 21 '16 at 4:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Then the question cannot be answered, for much the reason you suggested: the indefinite integral gives you an entire class of functions, not a single function. The best you can say is that $f(x)$ is a member of that class, when you take the constant $C=0$. $\endgroup$ Dec 21 '16 at 4:54
  • $\begingroup$ thank you so much! Final question - how come you need to have the constant be 0 in order for it to be a member of the class of antiderivatives? $\endgroup$
    – rb612
    Dec 21 '16 at 4:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's not what I meant -- I meant that it IS a member of the class, witnessed by taking $C=0$. $\endgroup$ Dec 21 '16 at 4:55
  • $\begingroup$ okay I think I'm understanding, so if I have the function that I used in my example $f(x)=2x+6$ and now I use the indefinite integral on the left side, I get $2x+C$ so choosing a $C$ here of $6$ will show at f(x) is in the set of functions which differ by a constant? $\endgroup$
    – rb612
    Dec 21 '16 at 4:59

In addition to the excelent answers already given, there are a few subleties one should explicitly point out.

There are two main concepts for integration, the first being indefinite integration, that is finding the antiderrivative of a function, and the second is definite integration, finding the measure of the (signed) area enclosed by the graph of a function and the x-axis. There are various ways to codify these concepts in a rigourous mathematical language.

For exaple, if we know that $f$ is a real function over $[a, b]$, $a,b \in \mathbb{R}$, we use Riemann's definition of $$\int_{a}^b f(x) \, \operatorname{d}\!x \ ,$$ which can be found in any elementary calculus textbook. Provited that $f$ meets some specific conditions, we say that $f$ is Riemann-integrable over $[a,b]$ and we assign the above symbolic expression a unique real value. (There is also a theorem according to which if $f$ is Riemann-integrale over $[a,b]$, it's also Riemann-integrable over any closed subinterval of $[a,b]$).

But what about indefinite integration? Remember that, given a real function $h$ over an interval $I$, function $H:I \to \mathbb{R}$ is called an antiderivative of $h$ just in case $H'=h$. You shall note that whenever $H$ is an antiderivative of $h$, $H+c$ is likewise an antiderivative of $h$, and you can prove that any antiderivative of $h$ is of the form $H+c$ for some constant c.

Now, get ready for the hard truth...

While acknowledging that there is an infinite number of antiderivatives for $h$ (all functions $H+c$), mathematicians go mad, break their own rules, and proudly state: $$\int h(x) \, \operatorname{d}\!x = H(x),$$ without any clue of shame! Sometimes, we even go as far as claiming that ‘the indefinite integral of $h(x)$ is H(x) for all $x \in I$’! There is not really such a thing as the indefinite integral of a function, for there is not such a thing as the antiderivative of a function; there are uncountably many of them. This is a clear abuse of notation/terminology, but due to historical reasons, it is accepted as the standard to this day.

To illustrate the above mentioned facts, some books prefer to write $$\int h(x) \, \operatorname{d}\!x = H(x)+c,$$ and say that $c$ is an arbitrary constant, named constant of integration. This is a good way to remind us that if we have an integral equation like this: $$\int h(x) \, \operatorname{d}\!x + x^2 = 6\ln x + 42,$$ we get the equivalent statement $$\exists c \in \mathbb{R} \quad H(x) + c + x^2 = 6\ln x +42.$$

$$\star \ \star \ \star$$

Now you may understand what exactly that peculiar constant is, and why it's not supposed to much a specific function, as you say in your question. There are not constants ‘existing’ in integrable functions!

I'll finish this long (too long?) post by noticing that the integral $$\int_{a}^x f'(t) \, \operatorname{d}\!t$$ in question is not just a definite integral (definite integrals equal a real number) but a function $$F(x) = \int_{a}^x f'(t) \, \operatorname{d}\!t, \ x \in D,$$ where $f'$ should be Riemann-integrable over $D$ (recall also that $a \in D$, and $D$ should be a closed and bounted interval). After all this, you can use the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and find that $$F(x) = f(x) - f(a), \ x \in D,$$ as already mentioned by others.

I know I wrote a lot, but I think this helps the OP figure out some usual misconceptions that underlie her/his question. Any comments/corrections welcome!


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.