Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Integration (Theory)

  • 03-02-2014 10:43pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 235 ✭✭


    So I am starting Integration at the moment.

    What I am struggling to understand is this.

    If I integrate y' = 2x I get back out the original function x^2, but how graphically can I work out what is going on, with Differentiation you could see by Differentiating from first principals how to find the tangent at any point, but how does knowing the derivative of a function and multiplying it by an infinitesimally small change in x 'build' the original function?

    Any help greatly appreciated.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,141 ✭✭✭Yakuza


    Try looking at integration as the summation of a series of slices under the graph of the function.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    Don't forget about the constant. You get back a function with the same "shape" but not the exact original.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,633 ✭✭✭TheBody


    There should be lots of video on youtube to help you out. For example:



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Ompala


    Its probably overused to death at this point, but try thinking of displacement (s) and velocity (v).
    At an infinitesimally small gap in time(dt) the infinitesimally small displacement is going to be ds = v dt, and since the whole displacement is the sum of the infinitesimally small displacements, by adding them all up you can "build up" the original from the derivative. The "whole adding them all up bit" is where integration comes in. Hope that helps :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,893 ✭✭✭Davidius


    Graphically I don't think there's one that's quite as clean as the tangent line representation of the derivative. Integration is in general a lot 'harder' than differentiation

    This is a relatively clean visualisation
    q0ffuXi.png

    Here you can see that the change of the area is roughly the function times the 'change' in input h (which intuitively is infinitesimal). Dividing by h and taking the limit you get A'(x) = f(x). Hence the instantaneous rate of the area at x is f(x). Hence if you sum (hence the elongated S) up these infinitesimal areas f(x)dx you get the overall area.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭di11on


    I think the nature of the op's confusion is that you are trying to interpret what the integral of a derivative is... well it's just the original function, which isn't that interesting.

    Perhaps a better way to think of it is this...

    Imagine a function f(t) told you how many widgets you had at time t

    Say f(t) = 5t

    at time t=0, f(t) = 0 (I have zero widgets at time t=0)
    at time t=1 f(t) = 5 (I have 5 widgets at time t = 1).

    If I wanted to know how many widgets I had a time t=100 we can find this out by integrating.

    integral ( f(t) ) dt = 5/2 t^2 + c

    Assume I have zero widgets at time t=0. At time t=100 I have:

    5/2 * (10,000)

    If I wanted to know how fast I am accumulating widgets, that's the derivative... in this case;

    d( f(t))/dt = 5

    So my rate of change of widgets is 5 widgets a second.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 235 ✭✭Username99


    Hi guys,

    Thanks for all the replies, I have been working on this problem all week and I think I am very close.

    I am currently preparing a Microsoft Word document which outlines the problem with my understanding of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and I will attach it to a post here hopefully by Sunday evening.

    Anyone please feel free to go through it when I post the attachment and finds holes etc...

    I feel I could be close, but I am just one small slip up to finding myself back at square one.

    Thanks for all the help so far.


Advertisement