What's the derivative of an integral?











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by



$$ mathcal F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$



is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative



$$mathcal F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$



My question is the following: What will happen in this case?



$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$$



Would the derivative be:



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}$$
or



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




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




















  • Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
    – T. Bongers
    2 hours ago








  • 2




    Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
    – littleO
    2 hours ago










  • $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
    – Ryk
    2 hours ago

















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by



$$ mathcal F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$



is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative



$$mathcal F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$



My question is the following: What will happen in this case?



$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$$



Would the derivative be:



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}$$
or



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




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




















  • Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
    – T. Bongers
    2 hours ago








  • 2




    Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
    – littleO
    2 hours ago










  • $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
    – Ryk
    2 hours ago















up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by



$$ mathcal F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$



is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative



$$mathcal F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$



My question is the following: What will happen in this case?



$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$$



Would the derivative be:



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}$$
or



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




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











Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by



$$ mathcal F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$



is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative



$$mathcal F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$



My question is the following: What will happen in this case?



$$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$$



Would the derivative be:



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}$$
or



$$mathcal H'(x) = mathcal e^{x^2}-1$$







calculus






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Ryk 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




Ryk 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 2 hours ago









Toby Mak

3,32811128




3,32811128






New contributor




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









asked 2 hours ago









Ryk

132




132




New contributor




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





New contributor





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






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












  • Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
    – T. Bongers
    2 hours ago








  • 2




    Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
    – littleO
    2 hours ago










  • $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
    – Ryk
    2 hours ago




















  • Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
    – T. Bongers
    2 hours ago








  • 2




    Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
    – littleO
    2 hours ago










  • $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
    – Ryk
    2 hours ago


















Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
2 hours ago






Welcome to MSE; please proofread your question before posting, and use the formatting guide to fix this.
– T. Bongers
2 hours ago






2




2




Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
2 hours ago




Why would it be $mathcal H'(x) = e^{x^2} - 1$? Where would the $-1$ come from?
– littleO
2 hours ago












$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
2 hours ago






$e^{t^2}$ you replace t with x - $e^{t^2}$ you replace t with 0.
– Ryk
2 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).



Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.



You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.



Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.



Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.



    It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 1




      Very nice (+1).
      – gimusi
      2 hours ago










    • You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
      – Ryk
      2 hours ago


















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:




    Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by



    $$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$



    is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative



    $$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$




    For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.



    It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.



    Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.





    Edit: to answer a comment




    What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?




    Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have



    $$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$



    Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that



    $$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$



    where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • What happens when a is not zero then ?
      – Ryk
      2 hours ago










    • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
      – gimusi
      2 hours ago










    • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
      – gimusi
      2 hours ago










    • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
      – Ryk
      1 hour ago










    • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
      – Ryk
      1 hour ago


















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds



    $$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$



    therefore



    $$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • +1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
      – the_candyman
      2 hours ago












    • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
      – gimusi
      2 hours ago






    • 1




      That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
      – Taladris
      2 hours ago












    • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
      – gimusi
      2 hours ago











    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',
    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
    });


    }
    });






    Ryk 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%2f3023387%2fwhats-the-derivative-of-an-integral%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).



    Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.



    You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.



    Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.



    Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).



      Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.



      You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.



      Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.



      Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted






        If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).



        Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.



        You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.



        Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.



        Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        If we use the idea in your comment (to the question) then $mathcal{F} '(x) $ should equal $f(x) - f(a) $ and not just $f(x) $ as mentioned in your question. I guess the confusion comes from mixing two parts of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (henceforth referred to as FTC).



        Part 1 of FTC deals with an integral of the form $int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dt$ where the lower limit of integral is a constant $a$ and upper limit $x$ is a variable. This then defines a new function, say $mathcal{F} :[a, b] tomathbb{R} $ via the relation $$mathcal {F} (x) =int_{a} ^{x} f(t) , dttag{1}$$ The goal of part 1 of FTC is to study the properties of this new function $mathcal{F} $ in terms of properties of $f$. And it says that $mathcal{F} $ is continuous on $[a, b] $ and if $f$ is continuous at some $cin[a, b] $ then $mathcal{F} $ is differentiable at $c$ and $mathcal{F} '(c) =f(c) $.



        You should notice that the lower limit $a$ does not figure out in conclusion of the theorem. The value $mathcal{F} (x) $ depends on $f, a$ and $x$ but the value $mathcal{F}' (x) $ depends on $f$ and $x$ only.



        Part 2 of FTC deals with the evaluation of $int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx$ under certain conditions. It assumes that $f$ is Riemann integrable on $[a, b] $ and possesses an anti-derivative $mathcal{F} $ so that $$mathcal{F} '(x) =f(x), forall xin[a, b] $$ and then says that $$int_{a} ^{b} f(x) , dx=mathcal{F} (b) - mathcal {F} (a) tag{2}$$ It is here that both the upper and lower limits of integration play key role and the integral is expressed as difference between the values of the anti-derivative.



        Note that the $mathcal{F} $ in both parts of FTC are different and in particular the $mathcal{F} $ in part 1 is not necessarily an anti-derivative of $f$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 43 mins ago

























        answered 51 mins ago









        Paramanand Singh

        48.4k555156




        48.4k555156






















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.



            It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Very nice (+1).
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
              – Ryk
              2 hours ago















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.



            It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Very nice (+1).
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
              – Ryk
              2 hours ago













            up vote
            3
            down vote










            up vote
            3
            down vote









            Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.



            It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Note that $F(x+h)= F(x) + int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt$ and for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$. Hence we expect $F'(x) = f(x)$.



            It is straightforward to make this argument rigorous.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 2 hours ago









            copper.hat

            125k559159




            125k559159








            • 1




              Very nice (+1).
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
              – Ryk
              2 hours ago














            • 1




              Very nice (+1).
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
              – Ryk
              2 hours ago








            1




            1




            Very nice (+1).
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago




            Very nice (+1).
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago












            You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
            – Ryk
            2 hours ago




            You said for small $h$ we have $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^{x+h} f(x)dt = f(x) h$ why are you not getting rid of the h from the second integral and say something like this given that h is very small, approaching zero. $int_x^{x+h} f(t)dt approx int_x^x f(x)dt = f(x) h$
            – Ryk
            2 hours ago










            up vote
            1
            down vote













            The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:




            Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by



            $$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$



            is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative



            $$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$




            For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.



            It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.



            Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.





            Edit: to answer a comment




            What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?




            Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have



            $$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$



            Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that



            $$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$



            where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • What happens when a is not zero then ?
              – Ryk
              2 hours ago










            • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
              – Ryk
              1 hour ago










            • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
              – Ryk
              1 hour ago















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:




            Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by



            $$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$



            is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative



            $$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$




            For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.



            It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.



            Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.





            Edit: to answer a comment




            What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?




            Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have



            $$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$



            Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that



            $$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$



            where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • What happens when a is not zero then ?
              – Ryk
              2 hours ago










            • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
              – Ryk
              1 hour ago










            • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
              – Ryk
              1 hour ago













            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:




            Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by



            $$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$



            is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative



            $$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$




            For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.



            It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.



            Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.





            Edit: to answer a comment




            What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?




            Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have



            $$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$



            Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that



            $$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$



            where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            The simplest when applying a new formula is to identify each component:




            Let f be a continuous function on the interval $[a, b]$. The function F defined by



            $$F(x) = int_a^x f(t)dt $$



            is continuous on $[a,b]$, differentiable on $(a,b)$ and has derivative



            $$F'(x) = mathcal f(x)$$




            For $H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dt$ we have $a=0$ (lower limit of integration) and $f(t)=e^{t^2}$.



            It is also important to check that all conditions of the theorem are satisfied: here, the functions $g(t)=e^{t}$ and $h(t)=t^2$ are continuous on $mathbb R$, so their composition $f=gcirc h$ is continuous on $mathbb R$, hence on $[a,b]$.



            Now, we can safely apply the formula: $H'(x) = f(x)=mathcal e^{x^2}$.





            Edit: to answer a comment




            What would happen if $a$ is not $0$?




            Note that the formula depends only on $f$ and its continuity and not really on $a$. For example, consider $H_2(x)=int_1^{x} f(t); dt= int_1^x e^{t^2}; dt$. Then, all of the above applies here and we have



            $$H_2'(x) = f(x) = e^{x^2} $$



            Wait! Why do the functions $H_2$ and $H_1(x)=int^x_0 f(t); dt$ have the same derivative $f(x)=e^{x^2}$? That's clear when you remark that



            $$H_1(x)=int_0^x f(t); dt=int_0^1 f(t); dt + int_1^x f(t); dt= C + H_2(x)$$



            where $C=int_0^1 f(t); dt$. Since $C$ is a constant, we have $H_1'(x)=H_2'(x)$.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered 2 hours ago









            Taladris

            4,63731832




            4,63731832












            • What happens when a is not zero then ?
              – Ryk
              2 hours ago










            • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
              – Ryk
              1 hour ago










            • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
              – Ryk
              1 hour ago


















            • What happens when a is not zero then ?
              – Ryk
              2 hours ago










            • Nice and simple approach! (+1)
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago










            • Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
              – Ryk
              1 hour ago










            • @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
              – Ryk
              1 hour ago
















            What happens when a is not zero then ?
            – Ryk
            2 hours ago




            What happens when a is not zero then ?
            – Ryk
            2 hours ago












            Nice and simple approach! (+1)
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago




            Nice and simple approach! (+1)
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago












            @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago




            @Ryk For the general case refer to the link I've given for Leibniz's rule.
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago












            Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
            – Ryk
            1 hour ago




            Thank you, super approach! @Taladris
            – Ryk
            1 hour ago












            @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
            – Ryk
            1 hour ago




            @gimusi, I will take a look into it, thank you!
            – Ryk
            1 hour ago










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds



            $$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$



            therefore



            $$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • +1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
              – the_candyman
              2 hours ago












            • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
              – Taladris
              2 hours ago












            • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds



            $$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$



            therefore



            $$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • +1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
              – the_candyman
              2 hours ago












            • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
              – Taladris
              2 hours ago












            • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds



            $$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$



            therefore



            $$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Recall that in general by Leibniz integral rule the following holds



            $$F(x)=int_{a(x)}^{b(x)}g(u) duimplies F'(x)=g(b(x))cdot b'(x)-g(a(x))cdot a'(x)$$



            therefore



            $$mathcal H(x) = int_0^x e^{t^2} dtimplies mathcal H'(x)=e^{x^2}$$







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 2 hours ago









            gimusi

            89.1k74495




            89.1k74495












            • +1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
              – the_candyman
              2 hours ago












            • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
              – Taladris
              2 hours ago












            • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago


















            • +1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
              – the_candyman
              2 hours ago












            • @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
              – Taladris
              2 hours ago












            • @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
              – gimusi
              2 hours ago
















            +1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
            – the_candyman
            2 hours ago






            +1, very nice answer. I was not aware about Leibniz integral rule. Maybe I used it many times, but I was not aware that it was due to Leibniz.
            – the_candyman
            2 hours ago














            @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago




            @the_candyman Thanks, much appreciative! Bye
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago




            1




            1




            That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
            – Taladris
            2 hours ago






            That's correct but I feel that's killing a bird with a bazooka. The OP has obviously problems with the application of a simple formula, why would a more general formula be helpful?
            – Taladris
            2 hours ago














            @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago




            @Taladris Yes you are right but also I want to give a more general reference for more general cases.
            – gimusi
            2 hours ago










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










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















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













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












            Ryk 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.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • 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.


            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%2f3023387%2fwhats-the-derivative-of-an-integral%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

            flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

            Mangá

            Eduardo VII do Reino Unido