Evaluating definite integrals using Fundamental Theorem of Calculus












16












$begingroup$


Here is a statement of the second part of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC2), from a well-known calculus text (James Stewart, Calculus, 4th ed):




If $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, then $int_a^b f(x) , dx = F(a)-F(b)$, where $F$ is any [emphasis mine] antiderivative of $f$, that is, a function such that $F'=f$.




The following, however, seems to give a counterexample.*

Can someone resolve this for me?:



Let $f(x) = frac{1}{4 sin (x)+5}$.



$f$ is continuous on $[0, 2 pi]$:



enter image description here



Consider two antiderivatives of $f$, $F_1$ and $F_2$:



$$F_1(x) = frac{x}{3}+frac{2}{3} tan^{-1}left(frac{cos (x)}{sin (x)+2}right)$$



$$F_2(x)=frac{1}{3} left(tan ^{-1}left(2-frac{3}{tan left(frac{x}{2}right)+2}right)-tan^{-1}left(2-frac{3}{cot left(frac{x}{2}right)+2}right)right).$$



Using Mathematica, I've confirmed that both $F_1'= f$ and $F_2'= f$. According to my reading of the above statement of FTC(2), $int_0^{2pi} f (x) , dx = F_1(2pi)-F_1(0)= F_2(2pi)-F_2(0)$



However,



$F_1(2pi)-F_1(0)=2pi/3$



$F_2(2pi)-F_2(0)=0$



Note from the plots below that $F_1$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, while $F_2$ is not. Given all of this, it seems the sufficient condition for $int_a^b f (x) , dx = F(a)-F(b)$ is that the antiderivative be continuous on $[a,b]$, not the integrand.



$F_1 =$



enter image description here



$F_2=$



enter image description here



*I've taken this example function from a wolfram.com blog.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




theorist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's obvious just from the graphs that $F_2$ is not an antiderivative. At the points of discontinuity, $F_2$ has a limit of its derivative, but that's not the same thing as being differentiable at that point.
    $endgroup$
    – aschepler
    Jan 20 at 3:56










  • $begingroup$
    The integral function of any function is continuous period. So if you got an $F$ that wasn't continuous then it wasn't an integral. By integral I mean $int_0^x f(t) dt = F(x)$. An integral need not be differentiable though.
    $endgroup$
    – The Great Duck
    Jan 20 at 7:19










  • $begingroup$
    $F_1$ and $F_2$ can be made equal by adding constants, $c_i$, in each interval where $F_2$ is continuous. For instance $c_iapprox0.524$ when $xin(-0.93, 4.07)$ and so on. These $c_i$ account for the discontinuities in $f(x)$ but as long as you're not integrating over any discontinuities, $F_2$ would be valid. This is all because the antiderivative of a discontinuous function may have multiple constants of integration (even in the case of $int frac1xmathrm{d}x$).
    $endgroup$
    – Jam
    Jan 20 at 20:10












  • $begingroup$
    Great Duck forgets about the Heavyside impulse function.
    $endgroup$
    – richard1941
    5 mins ago
















16












$begingroup$


Here is a statement of the second part of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC2), from a well-known calculus text (James Stewart, Calculus, 4th ed):




If $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, then $int_a^b f(x) , dx = F(a)-F(b)$, where $F$ is any [emphasis mine] antiderivative of $f$, that is, a function such that $F'=f$.




The following, however, seems to give a counterexample.*

Can someone resolve this for me?:



Let $f(x) = frac{1}{4 sin (x)+5}$.



$f$ is continuous on $[0, 2 pi]$:



enter image description here



Consider two antiderivatives of $f$, $F_1$ and $F_2$:



$$F_1(x) = frac{x}{3}+frac{2}{3} tan^{-1}left(frac{cos (x)}{sin (x)+2}right)$$



$$F_2(x)=frac{1}{3} left(tan ^{-1}left(2-frac{3}{tan left(frac{x}{2}right)+2}right)-tan^{-1}left(2-frac{3}{cot left(frac{x}{2}right)+2}right)right).$$



Using Mathematica, I've confirmed that both $F_1'= f$ and $F_2'= f$. According to my reading of the above statement of FTC(2), $int_0^{2pi} f (x) , dx = F_1(2pi)-F_1(0)= F_2(2pi)-F_2(0)$



However,



$F_1(2pi)-F_1(0)=2pi/3$



$F_2(2pi)-F_2(0)=0$



Note from the plots below that $F_1$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, while $F_2$ is not. Given all of this, it seems the sufficient condition for $int_a^b f (x) , dx = F(a)-F(b)$ is that the antiderivative be continuous on $[a,b]$, not the integrand.



$F_1 =$



enter image description here



$F_2=$



enter image description here



*I've taken this example function from a wolfram.com blog.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




theorist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's obvious just from the graphs that $F_2$ is not an antiderivative. At the points of discontinuity, $F_2$ has a limit of its derivative, but that's not the same thing as being differentiable at that point.
    $endgroup$
    – aschepler
    Jan 20 at 3:56










  • $begingroup$
    The integral function of any function is continuous period. So if you got an $F$ that wasn't continuous then it wasn't an integral. By integral I mean $int_0^x f(t) dt = F(x)$. An integral need not be differentiable though.
    $endgroup$
    – The Great Duck
    Jan 20 at 7:19










  • $begingroup$
    $F_1$ and $F_2$ can be made equal by adding constants, $c_i$, in each interval where $F_2$ is continuous. For instance $c_iapprox0.524$ when $xin(-0.93, 4.07)$ and so on. These $c_i$ account for the discontinuities in $f(x)$ but as long as you're not integrating over any discontinuities, $F_2$ would be valid. This is all because the antiderivative of a discontinuous function may have multiple constants of integration (even in the case of $int frac1xmathrm{d}x$).
    $endgroup$
    – Jam
    Jan 20 at 20:10












  • $begingroup$
    Great Duck forgets about the Heavyside impulse function.
    $endgroup$
    – richard1941
    5 mins ago














16












16








16


1



$begingroup$


Here is a statement of the second part of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC2), from a well-known calculus text (James Stewart, Calculus, 4th ed):




If $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, then $int_a^b f(x) , dx = F(a)-F(b)$, where $F$ is any [emphasis mine] antiderivative of $f$, that is, a function such that $F'=f$.




The following, however, seems to give a counterexample.*

Can someone resolve this for me?:



Let $f(x) = frac{1}{4 sin (x)+5}$.



$f$ is continuous on $[0, 2 pi]$:



enter image description here



Consider two antiderivatives of $f$, $F_1$ and $F_2$:



$$F_1(x) = frac{x}{3}+frac{2}{3} tan^{-1}left(frac{cos (x)}{sin (x)+2}right)$$



$$F_2(x)=frac{1}{3} left(tan ^{-1}left(2-frac{3}{tan left(frac{x}{2}right)+2}right)-tan^{-1}left(2-frac{3}{cot left(frac{x}{2}right)+2}right)right).$$



Using Mathematica, I've confirmed that both $F_1'= f$ and $F_2'= f$. According to my reading of the above statement of FTC(2), $int_0^{2pi} f (x) , dx = F_1(2pi)-F_1(0)= F_2(2pi)-F_2(0)$



However,



$F_1(2pi)-F_1(0)=2pi/3$



$F_2(2pi)-F_2(0)=0$



Note from the plots below that $F_1$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, while $F_2$ is not. Given all of this, it seems the sufficient condition for $int_a^b f (x) , dx = F(a)-F(b)$ is that the antiderivative be continuous on $[a,b]$, not the integrand.



$F_1 =$



enter image description here



$F_2=$



enter image description here



*I've taken this example function from a wolfram.com blog.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




theorist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Here is a statement of the second part of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC2), from a well-known calculus text (James Stewart, Calculus, 4th ed):




If $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, then $int_a^b f(x) , dx = F(a)-F(b)$, where $F$ is any [emphasis mine] antiderivative of $f$, that is, a function such that $F'=f$.




The following, however, seems to give a counterexample.*

Can someone resolve this for me?:



Let $f(x) = frac{1}{4 sin (x)+5}$.



$f$ is continuous on $[0, 2 pi]$:



enter image description here



Consider two antiderivatives of $f$, $F_1$ and $F_2$:



$$F_1(x) = frac{x}{3}+frac{2}{3} tan^{-1}left(frac{cos (x)}{sin (x)+2}right)$$



$$F_2(x)=frac{1}{3} left(tan ^{-1}left(2-frac{3}{tan left(frac{x}{2}right)+2}right)-tan^{-1}left(2-frac{3}{cot left(frac{x}{2}right)+2}right)right).$$



Using Mathematica, I've confirmed that both $F_1'= f$ and $F_2'= f$. According to my reading of the above statement of FTC(2), $int_0^{2pi} f (x) , dx = F_1(2pi)-F_1(0)= F_2(2pi)-F_2(0)$



However,



$F_1(2pi)-F_1(0)=2pi/3$



$F_2(2pi)-F_2(0)=0$



Note from the plots below that $F_1$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, while $F_2$ is not. Given all of this, it seems the sufficient condition for $int_a^b f (x) , dx = F(a)-F(b)$ is that the antiderivative be continuous on $[a,b]$, not the integrand.



$F_1 =$



enter image description here



$F_2=$



enter image description here



*I've taken this example function from a wolfram.com blog.







calculus definite-integrals






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




theorist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




theorist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 20 at 1:21









Chase Ryan Taylor

4,37921530




4,37921530






New contributor




theorist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Jan 19 at 16:16









theoristtheorist

1866




1866




New contributor




theorist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





theorist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






theorist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's obvious just from the graphs that $F_2$ is not an antiderivative. At the points of discontinuity, $F_2$ has a limit of its derivative, but that's not the same thing as being differentiable at that point.
    $endgroup$
    – aschepler
    Jan 20 at 3:56










  • $begingroup$
    The integral function of any function is continuous period. So if you got an $F$ that wasn't continuous then it wasn't an integral. By integral I mean $int_0^x f(t) dt = F(x)$. An integral need not be differentiable though.
    $endgroup$
    – The Great Duck
    Jan 20 at 7:19










  • $begingroup$
    $F_1$ and $F_2$ can be made equal by adding constants, $c_i$, in each interval where $F_2$ is continuous. For instance $c_iapprox0.524$ when $xin(-0.93, 4.07)$ and so on. These $c_i$ account for the discontinuities in $f(x)$ but as long as you're not integrating over any discontinuities, $F_2$ would be valid. This is all because the antiderivative of a discontinuous function may have multiple constants of integration (even in the case of $int frac1xmathrm{d}x$).
    $endgroup$
    – Jam
    Jan 20 at 20:10












  • $begingroup$
    Great Duck forgets about the Heavyside impulse function.
    $endgroup$
    – richard1941
    5 mins ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's obvious just from the graphs that $F_2$ is not an antiderivative. At the points of discontinuity, $F_2$ has a limit of its derivative, but that's not the same thing as being differentiable at that point.
    $endgroup$
    – aschepler
    Jan 20 at 3:56










  • $begingroup$
    The integral function of any function is continuous period. So if you got an $F$ that wasn't continuous then it wasn't an integral. By integral I mean $int_0^x f(t) dt = F(x)$. An integral need not be differentiable though.
    $endgroup$
    – The Great Duck
    Jan 20 at 7:19










  • $begingroup$
    $F_1$ and $F_2$ can be made equal by adding constants, $c_i$, in each interval where $F_2$ is continuous. For instance $c_iapprox0.524$ when $xin(-0.93, 4.07)$ and so on. These $c_i$ account for the discontinuities in $f(x)$ but as long as you're not integrating over any discontinuities, $F_2$ would be valid. This is all because the antiderivative of a discontinuous function may have multiple constants of integration (even in the case of $int frac1xmathrm{d}x$).
    $endgroup$
    – Jam
    Jan 20 at 20:10












  • $begingroup$
    Great Duck forgets about the Heavyside impulse function.
    $endgroup$
    – richard1941
    5 mins ago








1




1




$begingroup$
It's obvious just from the graphs that $F_2$ is not an antiderivative. At the points of discontinuity, $F_2$ has a limit of its derivative, but that's not the same thing as being differentiable at that point.
$endgroup$
– aschepler
Jan 20 at 3:56




$begingroup$
It's obvious just from the graphs that $F_2$ is not an antiderivative. At the points of discontinuity, $F_2$ has a limit of its derivative, but that's not the same thing as being differentiable at that point.
$endgroup$
– aschepler
Jan 20 at 3:56












$begingroup$
The integral function of any function is continuous period. So if you got an $F$ that wasn't continuous then it wasn't an integral. By integral I mean $int_0^x f(t) dt = F(x)$. An integral need not be differentiable though.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Jan 20 at 7:19




$begingroup$
The integral function of any function is continuous period. So if you got an $F$ that wasn't continuous then it wasn't an integral. By integral I mean $int_0^x f(t) dt = F(x)$. An integral need not be differentiable though.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Jan 20 at 7:19












$begingroup$
$F_1$ and $F_2$ can be made equal by adding constants, $c_i$, in each interval where $F_2$ is continuous. For instance $c_iapprox0.524$ when $xin(-0.93, 4.07)$ and so on. These $c_i$ account for the discontinuities in $f(x)$ but as long as you're not integrating over any discontinuities, $F_2$ would be valid. This is all because the antiderivative of a discontinuous function may have multiple constants of integration (even in the case of $int frac1xmathrm{d}x$).
$endgroup$
– Jam
Jan 20 at 20:10






$begingroup$
$F_1$ and $F_2$ can be made equal by adding constants, $c_i$, in each interval where $F_2$ is continuous. For instance $c_iapprox0.524$ when $xin(-0.93, 4.07)$ and so on. These $c_i$ account for the discontinuities in $f(x)$ but as long as you're not integrating over any discontinuities, $F_2$ would be valid. This is all because the antiderivative of a discontinuous function may have multiple constants of integration (even in the case of $int frac1xmathrm{d}x$).
$endgroup$
– Jam
Jan 20 at 20:10














$begingroup$
Great Duck forgets about the Heavyside impulse function.
$endgroup$
– richard1941
5 mins ago




$begingroup$
Great Duck forgets about the Heavyside impulse function.
$endgroup$
– richard1941
5 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















38












$begingroup$

A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It's also worth mentioning that any integral function is also always continuous regardless of whether or not an antiderivative actually exists. Though when the antiderivative exists then the set of integral functions and antiderivatives will be one and the same.
    $endgroup$
    – The Great Duck
    Jan 20 at 7:17










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Martin. That clears it up. I'll just wait the requisite additional day or so before accepting an answer. I'm curious: Is the proper phrasing to say that F2 is not differentiable, period, or can we say it is (piecewise?) differentiable on the domain x ∈ ℝ, where: x ≠ {- 2(arctan[2] + n𝜋) || - 2(cotan[2] + n𝜋)} & n ∈ ℤ? [I understand that, even if one could say the latter, it wouldn't change the fact that F2 is not an antiderivative of f.]
    $endgroup$
    – theorist
    Jan 20 at 21:51












  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. And yes, you are right. It is piecewise differentiable.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 20 at 23:52



















4












$begingroup$

@Martin Argerami posted a succinct and correct answer:




A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is
not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.




To elaborate, $F_2$ is not continuous due to the multi-valued nature of $arctan$. Since $tan$ is a periodic function (with a period of $pi$), this means that $arctan$ has an infinite number of values. Its plot looks like this:



multi-valued arctan



To make it a proper function (one unique output value), we usually pick the primary branch (the one through the origin). However, notice that the primary branch is discontinuous at infinity - if we pass through positive infinity and come back out at negative infinity, we've jumped from $pi/2$ to $-pi/2$. What we really wanted was to move to the next branch up to preserve continuity, but to do that we'd no longer have a single valued function. We wouldn't have a function at all, really, since the common definition of function requires it to be single valued.



The discontinuities of $F_2$ are precisely where the argument of $arctan$ becomes infinite - where $2+cotfrac{x}{2}$ and $2+tanfrac{x}{2}$ become zero - approximately 4.07 and 5.36.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Since we are talking about functions on the real numbers, of which $infty$ is a not a member, there no such thing as "discontinuous at infinity".
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    Jan 20 at 1:35










  • $begingroup$
    @Paul Sinclair: True, I'm playing a bit loose with that term. 3/(2+tan(x/2)) approaches negative infinity (at x=4.07), becomes indeterminate, then reappears coming in from positive infinity. Applying arctan to two minus that value, it approaches -pi/2, becomes indeterminate, then reappears decreasing from pi/2. Strictly speaking, it's a non-removable discontinuity that can be understood by looking at the limiting behavior of arctan as it approaches $pminfty$
    $endgroup$
    – Brent Baccala
    Jan 20 at 3:21











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






theorist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3079520%2fevaluating-definite-integrals-using-fundamental-theorem-of-calculus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









38












$begingroup$

A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It's also worth mentioning that any integral function is also always continuous regardless of whether or not an antiderivative actually exists. Though when the antiderivative exists then the set of integral functions and antiderivatives will be one and the same.
    $endgroup$
    – The Great Duck
    Jan 20 at 7:17










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Martin. That clears it up. I'll just wait the requisite additional day or so before accepting an answer. I'm curious: Is the proper phrasing to say that F2 is not differentiable, period, or can we say it is (piecewise?) differentiable on the domain x ∈ ℝ, where: x ≠ {- 2(arctan[2] + n𝜋) || - 2(cotan[2] + n𝜋)} & n ∈ ℤ? [I understand that, even if one could say the latter, it wouldn't change the fact that F2 is not an antiderivative of f.]
    $endgroup$
    – theorist
    Jan 20 at 21:51












  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. And yes, you are right. It is piecewise differentiable.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 20 at 23:52
















38












$begingroup$

A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It's also worth mentioning that any integral function is also always continuous regardless of whether or not an antiderivative actually exists. Though when the antiderivative exists then the set of integral functions and antiderivatives will be one and the same.
    $endgroup$
    – The Great Duck
    Jan 20 at 7:17










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Martin. That clears it up. I'll just wait the requisite additional day or so before accepting an answer. I'm curious: Is the proper phrasing to say that F2 is not differentiable, period, or can we say it is (piecewise?) differentiable on the domain x ∈ ℝ, where: x ≠ {- 2(arctan[2] + n𝜋) || - 2(cotan[2] + n𝜋)} & n ∈ ℤ? [I understand that, even if one could say the latter, it wouldn't change the fact that F2 is not an antiderivative of f.]
    $endgroup$
    – theorist
    Jan 20 at 21:51












  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. And yes, you are right. It is piecewise differentiable.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 20 at 23:52














38












38








38





$begingroup$

A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 19 at 16:21









Martin ArgeramiMartin Argerami

126k1181180




126k1181180












  • $begingroup$
    It's also worth mentioning that any integral function is also always continuous regardless of whether or not an antiderivative actually exists. Though when the antiderivative exists then the set of integral functions and antiderivatives will be one and the same.
    $endgroup$
    – The Great Duck
    Jan 20 at 7:17










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Martin. That clears it up. I'll just wait the requisite additional day or so before accepting an answer. I'm curious: Is the proper phrasing to say that F2 is not differentiable, period, or can we say it is (piecewise?) differentiable on the domain x ∈ ℝ, where: x ≠ {- 2(arctan[2] + n𝜋) || - 2(cotan[2] + n𝜋)} & n ∈ ℤ? [I understand that, even if one could say the latter, it wouldn't change the fact that F2 is not an antiderivative of f.]
    $endgroup$
    – theorist
    Jan 20 at 21:51












  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. And yes, you are right. It is piecewise differentiable.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 20 at 23:52


















  • $begingroup$
    It's also worth mentioning that any integral function is also always continuous regardless of whether or not an antiderivative actually exists. Though when the antiderivative exists then the set of integral functions and antiderivatives will be one and the same.
    $endgroup$
    – The Great Duck
    Jan 20 at 7:17










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Martin. That clears it up. I'll just wait the requisite additional day or so before accepting an answer. I'm curious: Is the proper phrasing to say that F2 is not differentiable, period, or can we say it is (piecewise?) differentiable on the domain x ∈ ℝ, where: x ≠ {- 2(arctan[2] + n𝜋) || - 2(cotan[2] + n𝜋)} & n ∈ ℤ? [I understand that, even if one could say the latter, it wouldn't change the fact that F2 is not an antiderivative of f.]
    $endgroup$
    – theorist
    Jan 20 at 21:51












  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. And yes, you are right. It is piecewise differentiable.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 20 at 23:52
















$begingroup$
It's also worth mentioning that any integral function is also always continuous regardless of whether or not an antiderivative actually exists. Though when the antiderivative exists then the set of integral functions and antiderivatives will be one and the same.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Jan 20 at 7:17




$begingroup$
It's also worth mentioning that any integral function is also always continuous regardless of whether or not an antiderivative actually exists. Though when the antiderivative exists then the set of integral functions and antiderivatives will be one and the same.
$endgroup$
– The Great Duck
Jan 20 at 7:17












$begingroup$
Thanks Martin. That clears it up. I'll just wait the requisite additional day or so before accepting an answer. I'm curious: Is the proper phrasing to say that F2 is not differentiable, period, or can we say it is (piecewise?) differentiable on the domain x ∈ ℝ, where: x ≠ {- 2(arctan[2] + n𝜋) || - 2(cotan[2] + n𝜋)} & n ∈ ℤ? [I understand that, even if one could say the latter, it wouldn't change the fact that F2 is not an antiderivative of f.]
$endgroup$
– theorist
Jan 20 at 21:51






$begingroup$
Thanks Martin. That clears it up. I'll just wait the requisite additional day or so before accepting an answer. I'm curious: Is the proper phrasing to say that F2 is not differentiable, period, or can we say it is (piecewise?) differentiable on the domain x ∈ ℝ, where: x ≠ {- 2(arctan[2] + n𝜋) || - 2(cotan[2] + n𝜋)} & n ∈ ℤ? [I understand that, even if one could say the latter, it wouldn't change the fact that F2 is not an antiderivative of f.]
$endgroup$
– theorist
Jan 20 at 21:51














$begingroup$
Glad I could help. And yes, you are right. It is piecewise differentiable.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 20 at 23:52




$begingroup$
Glad I could help. And yes, you are right. It is piecewise differentiable.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 20 at 23:52











4












$begingroup$

@Martin Argerami posted a succinct and correct answer:




A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is
not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.




To elaborate, $F_2$ is not continuous due to the multi-valued nature of $arctan$. Since $tan$ is a periodic function (with a period of $pi$), this means that $arctan$ has an infinite number of values. Its plot looks like this:



multi-valued arctan



To make it a proper function (one unique output value), we usually pick the primary branch (the one through the origin). However, notice that the primary branch is discontinuous at infinity - if we pass through positive infinity and come back out at negative infinity, we've jumped from $pi/2$ to $-pi/2$. What we really wanted was to move to the next branch up to preserve continuity, but to do that we'd no longer have a single valued function. We wouldn't have a function at all, really, since the common definition of function requires it to be single valued.



The discontinuities of $F_2$ are precisely where the argument of $arctan$ becomes infinite - where $2+cotfrac{x}{2}$ and $2+tanfrac{x}{2}$ become zero - approximately 4.07 and 5.36.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Since we are talking about functions on the real numbers, of which $infty$ is a not a member, there no such thing as "discontinuous at infinity".
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    Jan 20 at 1:35










  • $begingroup$
    @Paul Sinclair: True, I'm playing a bit loose with that term. 3/(2+tan(x/2)) approaches negative infinity (at x=4.07), becomes indeterminate, then reappears coming in from positive infinity. Applying arctan to two minus that value, it approaches -pi/2, becomes indeterminate, then reappears decreasing from pi/2. Strictly speaking, it's a non-removable discontinuity that can be understood by looking at the limiting behavior of arctan as it approaches $pminfty$
    $endgroup$
    – Brent Baccala
    Jan 20 at 3:21
















4












$begingroup$

@Martin Argerami posted a succinct and correct answer:




A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is
not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.




To elaborate, $F_2$ is not continuous due to the multi-valued nature of $arctan$. Since $tan$ is a periodic function (with a period of $pi$), this means that $arctan$ has an infinite number of values. Its plot looks like this:



multi-valued arctan



To make it a proper function (one unique output value), we usually pick the primary branch (the one through the origin). However, notice that the primary branch is discontinuous at infinity - if we pass through positive infinity and come back out at negative infinity, we've jumped from $pi/2$ to $-pi/2$. What we really wanted was to move to the next branch up to preserve continuity, but to do that we'd no longer have a single valued function. We wouldn't have a function at all, really, since the common definition of function requires it to be single valued.



The discontinuities of $F_2$ are precisely where the argument of $arctan$ becomes infinite - where $2+cotfrac{x}{2}$ and $2+tanfrac{x}{2}$ become zero - approximately 4.07 and 5.36.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Since we are talking about functions on the real numbers, of which $infty$ is a not a member, there no such thing as "discontinuous at infinity".
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    Jan 20 at 1:35










  • $begingroup$
    @Paul Sinclair: True, I'm playing a bit loose with that term. 3/(2+tan(x/2)) approaches negative infinity (at x=4.07), becomes indeterminate, then reappears coming in from positive infinity. Applying arctan to two minus that value, it approaches -pi/2, becomes indeterminate, then reappears decreasing from pi/2. Strictly speaking, it's a non-removable discontinuity that can be understood by looking at the limiting behavior of arctan as it approaches $pminfty$
    $endgroup$
    – Brent Baccala
    Jan 20 at 3:21














4












4








4





$begingroup$

@Martin Argerami posted a succinct and correct answer:




A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is
not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.




To elaborate, $F_2$ is not continuous due to the multi-valued nature of $arctan$. Since $tan$ is a periodic function (with a period of $pi$), this means that $arctan$ has an infinite number of values. Its plot looks like this:



multi-valued arctan



To make it a proper function (one unique output value), we usually pick the primary branch (the one through the origin). However, notice that the primary branch is discontinuous at infinity - if we pass through positive infinity and come back out at negative infinity, we've jumped from $pi/2$ to $-pi/2$. What we really wanted was to move to the next branch up to preserve continuity, but to do that we'd no longer have a single valued function. We wouldn't have a function at all, really, since the common definition of function requires it to be single valued.



The discontinuities of $F_2$ are precisely where the argument of $arctan$ becomes infinite - where $2+cotfrac{x}{2}$ and $2+tanfrac{x}{2}$ become zero - approximately 4.07 and 5.36.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



@Martin Argerami posted a succinct and correct answer:




A differentiable function is continuous. If your "antiderivative" is
not continuous, it is not an antiderivative of a continuous function.




To elaborate, $F_2$ is not continuous due to the multi-valued nature of $arctan$. Since $tan$ is a periodic function (with a period of $pi$), this means that $arctan$ has an infinite number of values. Its plot looks like this:



multi-valued arctan



To make it a proper function (one unique output value), we usually pick the primary branch (the one through the origin). However, notice that the primary branch is discontinuous at infinity - if we pass through positive infinity and come back out at negative infinity, we've jumped from $pi/2$ to $-pi/2$. What we really wanted was to move to the next branch up to preserve continuity, but to do that we'd no longer have a single valued function. We wouldn't have a function at all, really, since the common definition of function requires it to be single valued.



The discontinuities of $F_2$ are precisely where the argument of $arctan$ becomes infinite - where $2+cotfrac{x}{2}$ and $2+tanfrac{x}{2}$ become zero - approximately 4.07 and 5.36.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 20 at 0:52









Brent BaccalaBrent Baccala

336210




336210












  • $begingroup$
    Since we are talking about functions on the real numbers, of which $infty$ is a not a member, there no such thing as "discontinuous at infinity".
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    Jan 20 at 1:35










  • $begingroup$
    @Paul Sinclair: True, I'm playing a bit loose with that term. 3/(2+tan(x/2)) approaches negative infinity (at x=4.07), becomes indeterminate, then reappears coming in from positive infinity. Applying arctan to two minus that value, it approaches -pi/2, becomes indeterminate, then reappears decreasing from pi/2. Strictly speaking, it's a non-removable discontinuity that can be understood by looking at the limiting behavior of arctan as it approaches $pminfty$
    $endgroup$
    – Brent Baccala
    Jan 20 at 3:21


















  • $begingroup$
    Since we are talking about functions on the real numbers, of which $infty$ is a not a member, there no such thing as "discontinuous at infinity".
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    Jan 20 at 1:35










  • $begingroup$
    @Paul Sinclair: True, I'm playing a bit loose with that term. 3/(2+tan(x/2)) approaches negative infinity (at x=4.07), becomes indeterminate, then reappears coming in from positive infinity. Applying arctan to two minus that value, it approaches -pi/2, becomes indeterminate, then reappears decreasing from pi/2. Strictly speaking, it's a non-removable discontinuity that can be understood by looking at the limiting behavior of arctan as it approaches $pminfty$
    $endgroup$
    – Brent Baccala
    Jan 20 at 3:21
















$begingroup$
Since we are talking about functions on the real numbers, of which $infty$ is a not a member, there no such thing as "discontinuous at infinity".
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Jan 20 at 1:35




$begingroup$
Since we are talking about functions on the real numbers, of which $infty$ is a not a member, there no such thing as "discontinuous at infinity".
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Jan 20 at 1:35












$begingroup$
@Paul Sinclair: True, I'm playing a bit loose with that term. 3/(2+tan(x/2)) approaches negative infinity (at x=4.07), becomes indeterminate, then reappears coming in from positive infinity. Applying arctan to two minus that value, it approaches -pi/2, becomes indeterminate, then reappears decreasing from pi/2. Strictly speaking, it's a non-removable discontinuity that can be understood by looking at the limiting behavior of arctan as it approaches $pminfty$
$endgroup$
– Brent Baccala
Jan 20 at 3:21




$begingroup$
@Paul Sinclair: True, I'm playing a bit loose with that term. 3/(2+tan(x/2)) approaches negative infinity (at x=4.07), becomes indeterminate, then reappears coming in from positive infinity. Applying arctan to two minus that value, it approaches -pi/2, becomes indeterminate, then reappears decreasing from pi/2. Strictly speaking, it's a non-removable discontinuity that can be understood by looking at the limiting behavior of arctan as it approaches $pminfty$
$endgroup$
– Brent Baccala
Jan 20 at 3:21










theorist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















theorist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













theorist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












theorist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3079520%2fevaluating-definite-integrals-using-fundamental-theorem-of-calculus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

An IMO inspired problem

Management

Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?