Is there a way to tell whether an integral exists or not without graphing the function?
For example, trying to integrate the function 1/(t-4)^2 from x=1 to x=5. If you just go through the motions and apply u-substitution and part two of the fundamental theorem, you can arrive at an answer for this just fine. But it was only after graphing it that I saw that there was an asymptote within the limits of the integral, and so obviously the integral would be undefined.
Is there any way to tell whether this will be the case at first glance?
Is the only way to just get good at recognizing when functions have an asymptote? Isn't this sometimes very difficult to predict without fulling graphing the function?
Any help is appreciated.
Edit: one thing that should've been obvious to me is that: the function will have an asymptote if there's an opportunity for division by zero. So now my question is: is there anything else that can cause asymptotic behavior, and are there any situations in which integrals are undefined other than when the graph has an asymptote?
calculus integration
add a comment |
For example, trying to integrate the function 1/(t-4)^2 from x=1 to x=5. If you just go through the motions and apply u-substitution and part two of the fundamental theorem, you can arrive at an answer for this just fine. But it was only after graphing it that I saw that there was an asymptote within the limits of the integral, and so obviously the integral would be undefined.
Is there any way to tell whether this will be the case at first glance?
Is the only way to just get good at recognizing when functions have an asymptote? Isn't this sometimes very difficult to predict without fulling graphing the function?
Any help is appreciated.
Edit: one thing that should've been obvious to me is that: the function will have an asymptote if there's an opportunity for division by zero. So now my question is: is there anything else that can cause asymptotic behavior, and are there any situations in which integrals are undefined other than when the graph has an asymptote?
calculus integration
add a comment |
For example, trying to integrate the function 1/(t-4)^2 from x=1 to x=5. If you just go through the motions and apply u-substitution and part two of the fundamental theorem, you can arrive at an answer for this just fine. But it was only after graphing it that I saw that there was an asymptote within the limits of the integral, and so obviously the integral would be undefined.
Is there any way to tell whether this will be the case at first glance?
Is the only way to just get good at recognizing when functions have an asymptote? Isn't this sometimes very difficult to predict without fulling graphing the function?
Any help is appreciated.
Edit: one thing that should've been obvious to me is that: the function will have an asymptote if there's an opportunity for division by zero. So now my question is: is there anything else that can cause asymptotic behavior, and are there any situations in which integrals are undefined other than when the graph has an asymptote?
calculus integration
For example, trying to integrate the function 1/(t-4)^2 from x=1 to x=5. If you just go through the motions and apply u-substitution and part two of the fundamental theorem, you can arrive at an answer for this just fine. But it was only after graphing it that I saw that there was an asymptote within the limits of the integral, and so obviously the integral would be undefined.
Is there any way to tell whether this will be the case at first glance?
Is the only way to just get good at recognizing when functions have an asymptote? Isn't this sometimes very difficult to predict without fulling graphing the function?
Any help is appreciated.
Edit: one thing that should've been obvious to me is that: the function will have an asymptote if there's an opportunity for division by zero. So now my question is: is there anything else that can cause asymptotic behavior, and are there any situations in which integrals are undefined other than when the graph has an asymptote?
calculus integration
calculus integration
edited Dec 9 '18 at 20:48
asked Dec 9 '18 at 20:27
James Ronald
977
977
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Well, it is not true that the answer is not defined; consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2},dx$.
Generally speaking, do not rely on purely graphical methods to determine anything! Yes, the presence of an asymptote should make you pause, and carefully check something, but pictures are lies as my analysis professor used to say.
As far as recognizing when a function will have a singularity, really you are just hunting for the possibility of dividing by zero; with enough time and patience you will find that you do not need to graph anything at all to recognize that.
EDIT: To add more information based on conversations and updates to the OP, let me discuss two phenomena that can also cause an integral to fail to have a value.
First, we turn our attention to the indicator function of the rationals:
$$
chi_{mathbb{Q}}(x) = left{
begin{array}{ll}
1 & quad x inmathbb{Q} \
0 & quad x notinmathbb{Q}
end{array}
right.
$$
This function, if you somehow were able to graph it, would look like two lines -- the line $y=1$ and the line $y=0$. But it isn't! The rationals are what we call "dense" in the reals, and so in reality there is just a very fine "cloud" of points, everywhere, that is hovering at $1$, and another cloud of points down at $0$. If you try and apply your Darboux or Riemann integral definition to this function on any interval $[a,b]$, you will find that the limits/sups/infs/whatevers don't agree, and thus the integral doesn't exist.
Second, we consider improper integrals over oscillatory functions. Consider the integral $int_0^infty sin(2pi x),dx$. The value (if it were to exist) of this integral would be $lim_{brightarrowinfty}1-cos(2pi b)/2pi$. But this limit doesn't exist, because $cos(2pi x)$ just "wiggles" off into infinity. Even though there doesn't appear to be a singularity in this function, there is; it has been obfuscated and pushed out to the upper limit of integration!
It depends on your intergral though. If we're using an improper Riemann Integral then the integral exists, but if we're using Darboux integral then it does not, for Darboux requires boundedness for the upper/lower sums to make sense. In general I agree with your sentiment though.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:33
@Melody Does anyone truly care about the Darboux integral though? Honest question -- I've never really used it for anything beyond a simplifying assumption leading up to the Riemann integral.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:35
Isn't it not sometimes easier to show that a function is Darboux integral, and to compute it's integral that way? Sometimes you lose simplicity when you generalize.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:42
@Melody Perhaps, I'm just saying that I've never done it, except perhaps when I was taking my low-powered calculus course way back when. My real analysis course focused heavily on Riemann integration; we didn't fall back on Darboux at all.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
Well actually I was looking for a way to determine whether or not without graphing it, as graphing it isn't always an option. Is there something about the function itself that can tell me whether it's integral will be undefined/nonexistent anywhere?
– James Ronald
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
|
show 5 more comments
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032946%2fis-there-a-way-to-tell-whether-an-integral-exists-or-not-without-graphing-the-fu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Well, it is not true that the answer is not defined; consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2},dx$.
Generally speaking, do not rely on purely graphical methods to determine anything! Yes, the presence of an asymptote should make you pause, and carefully check something, but pictures are lies as my analysis professor used to say.
As far as recognizing when a function will have a singularity, really you are just hunting for the possibility of dividing by zero; with enough time and patience you will find that you do not need to graph anything at all to recognize that.
EDIT: To add more information based on conversations and updates to the OP, let me discuss two phenomena that can also cause an integral to fail to have a value.
First, we turn our attention to the indicator function of the rationals:
$$
chi_{mathbb{Q}}(x) = left{
begin{array}{ll}
1 & quad x inmathbb{Q} \
0 & quad x notinmathbb{Q}
end{array}
right.
$$
This function, if you somehow were able to graph it, would look like two lines -- the line $y=1$ and the line $y=0$. But it isn't! The rationals are what we call "dense" in the reals, and so in reality there is just a very fine "cloud" of points, everywhere, that is hovering at $1$, and another cloud of points down at $0$. If you try and apply your Darboux or Riemann integral definition to this function on any interval $[a,b]$, you will find that the limits/sups/infs/whatevers don't agree, and thus the integral doesn't exist.
Second, we consider improper integrals over oscillatory functions. Consider the integral $int_0^infty sin(2pi x),dx$. The value (if it were to exist) of this integral would be $lim_{brightarrowinfty}1-cos(2pi b)/2pi$. But this limit doesn't exist, because $cos(2pi x)$ just "wiggles" off into infinity. Even though there doesn't appear to be a singularity in this function, there is; it has been obfuscated and pushed out to the upper limit of integration!
It depends on your intergral though. If we're using an improper Riemann Integral then the integral exists, but if we're using Darboux integral then it does not, for Darboux requires boundedness for the upper/lower sums to make sense. In general I agree with your sentiment though.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:33
@Melody Does anyone truly care about the Darboux integral though? Honest question -- I've never really used it for anything beyond a simplifying assumption leading up to the Riemann integral.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:35
Isn't it not sometimes easier to show that a function is Darboux integral, and to compute it's integral that way? Sometimes you lose simplicity when you generalize.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:42
@Melody Perhaps, I'm just saying that I've never done it, except perhaps when I was taking my low-powered calculus course way back when. My real analysis course focused heavily on Riemann integration; we didn't fall back on Darboux at all.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
Well actually I was looking for a way to determine whether or not without graphing it, as graphing it isn't always an option. Is there something about the function itself that can tell me whether it's integral will be undefined/nonexistent anywhere?
– James Ronald
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
|
show 5 more comments
Well, it is not true that the answer is not defined; consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2},dx$.
Generally speaking, do not rely on purely graphical methods to determine anything! Yes, the presence of an asymptote should make you pause, and carefully check something, but pictures are lies as my analysis professor used to say.
As far as recognizing when a function will have a singularity, really you are just hunting for the possibility of dividing by zero; with enough time and patience you will find that you do not need to graph anything at all to recognize that.
EDIT: To add more information based on conversations and updates to the OP, let me discuss two phenomena that can also cause an integral to fail to have a value.
First, we turn our attention to the indicator function of the rationals:
$$
chi_{mathbb{Q}}(x) = left{
begin{array}{ll}
1 & quad x inmathbb{Q} \
0 & quad x notinmathbb{Q}
end{array}
right.
$$
This function, if you somehow were able to graph it, would look like two lines -- the line $y=1$ and the line $y=0$. But it isn't! The rationals are what we call "dense" in the reals, and so in reality there is just a very fine "cloud" of points, everywhere, that is hovering at $1$, and another cloud of points down at $0$. If you try and apply your Darboux or Riemann integral definition to this function on any interval $[a,b]$, you will find that the limits/sups/infs/whatevers don't agree, and thus the integral doesn't exist.
Second, we consider improper integrals over oscillatory functions. Consider the integral $int_0^infty sin(2pi x),dx$. The value (if it were to exist) of this integral would be $lim_{brightarrowinfty}1-cos(2pi b)/2pi$. But this limit doesn't exist, because $cos(2pi x)$ just "wiggles" off into infinity. Even though there doesn't appear to be a singularity in this function, there is; it has been obfuscated and pushed out to the upper limit of integration!
It depends on your intergral though. If we're using an improper Riemann Integral then the integral exists, but if we're using Darboux integral then it does not, for Darboux requires boundedness for the upper/lower sums to make sense. In general I agree with your sentiment though.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:33
@Melody Does anyone truly care about the Darboux integral though? Honest question -- I've never really used it for anything beyond a simplifying assumption leading up to the Riemann integral.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:35
Isn't it not sometimes easier to show that a function is Darboux integral, and to compute it's integral that way? Sometimes you lose simplicity when you generalize.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:42
@Melody Perhaps, I'm just saying that I've never done it, except perhaps when I was taking my low-powered calculus course way back when. My real analysis course focused heavily on Riemann integration; we didn't fall back on Darboux at all.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
Well actually I was looking for a way to determine whether or not without graphing it, as graphing it isn't always an option. Is there something about the function itself that can tell me whether it's integral will be undefined/nonexistent anywhere?
– James Ronald
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
|
show 5 more comments
Well, it is not true that the answer is not defined; consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2},dx$.
Generally speaking, do not rely on purely graphical methods to determine anything! Yes, the presence of an asymptote should make you pause, and carefully check something, but pictures are lies as my analysis professor used to say.
As far as recognizing when a function will have a singularity, really you are just hunting for the possibility of dividing by zero; with enough time and patience you will find that you do not need to graph anything at all to recognize that.
EDIT: To add more information based on conversations and updates to the OP, let me discuss two phenomena that can also cause an integral to fail to have a value.
First, we turn our attention to the indicator function of the rationals:
$$
chi_{mathbb{Q}}(x) = left{
begin{array}{ll}
1 & quad x inmathbb{Q} \
0 & quad x notinmathbb{Q}
end{array}
right.
$$
This function, if you somehow were able to graph it, would look like two lines -- the line $y=1$ and the line $y=0$. But it isn't! The rationals are what we call "dense" in the reals, and so in reality there is just a very fine "cloud" of points, everywhere, that is hovering at $1$, and another cloud of points down at $0$. If you try and apply your Darboux or Riemann integral definition to this function on any interval $[a,b]$, you will find that the limits/sups/infs/whatevers don't agree, and thus the integral doesn't exist.
Second, we consider improper integrals over oscillatory functions. Consider the integral $int_0^infty sin(2pi x),dx$. The value (if it were to exist) of this integral would be $lim_{brightarrowinfty}1-cos(2pi b)/2pi$. But this limit doesn't exist, because $cos(2pi x)$ just "wiggles" off into infinity. Even though there doesn't appear to be a singularity in this function, there is; it has been obfuscated and pushed out to the upper limit of integration!
Well, it is not true that the answer is not defined; consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2},dx$.
Generally speaking, do not rely on purely graphical methods to determine anything! Yes, the presence of an asymptote should make you pause, and carefully check something, but pictures are lies as my analysis professor used to say.
As far as recognizing when a function will have a singularity, really you are just hunting for the possibility of dividing by zero; with enough time and patience you will find that you do not need to graph anything at all to recognize that.
EDIT: To add more information based on conversations and updates to the OP, let me discuss two phenomena that can also cause an integral to fail to have a value.
First, we turn our attention to the indicator function of the rationals:
$$
chi_{mathbb{Q}}(x) = left{
begin{array}{ll}
1 & quad x inmathbb{Q} \
0 & quad x notinmathbb{Q}
end{array}
right.
$$
This function, if you somehow were able to graph it, would look like two lines -- the line $y=1$ and the line $y=0$. But it isn't! The rationals are what we call "dense" in the reals, and so in reality there is just a very fine "cloud" of points, everywhere, that is hovering at $1$, and another cloud of points down at $0$. If you try and apply your Darboux or Riemann integral definition to this function on any interval $[a,b]$, you will find that the limits/sups/infs/whatevers don't agree, and thus the integral doesn't exist.
Second, we consider improper integrals over oscillatory functions. Consider the integral $int_0^infty sin(2pi x),dx$. The value (if it were to exist) of this integral would be $lim_{brightarrowinfty}1-cos(2pi b)/2pi$. But this limit doesn't exist, because $cos(2pi x)$ just "wiggles" off into infinity. Even though there doesn't appear to be a singularity in this function, there is; it has been obfuscated and pushed out to the upper limit of integration!
edited Dec 9 '18 at 21:12
answered Dec 9 '18 at 20:31
GenericMathematician
863
863
It depends on your intergral though. If we're using an improper Riemann Integral then the integral exists, but if we're using Darboux integral then it does not, for Darboux requires boundedness for the upper/lower sums to make sense. In general I agree with your sentiment though.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:33
@Melody Does anyone truly care about the Darboux integral though? Honest question -- I've never really used it for anything beyond a simplifying assumption leading up to the Riemann integral.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:35
Isn't it not sometimes easier to show that a function is Darboux integral, and to compute it's integral that way? Sometimes you lose simplicity when you generalize.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:42
@Melody Perhaps, I'm just saying that I've never done it, except perhaps when I was taking my low-powered calculus course way back when. My real analysis course focused heavily on Riemann integration; we didn't fall back on Darboux at all.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
Well actually I was looking for a way to determine whether or not without graphing it, as graphing it isn't always an option. Is there something about the function itself that can tell me whether it's integral will be undefined/nonexistent anywhere?
– James Ronald
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
|
show 5 more comments
It depends on your intergral though. If we're using an improper Riemann Integral then the integral exists, but if we're using Darboux integral then it does not, for Darboux requires boundedness for the upper/lower sums to make sense. In general I agree with your sentiment though.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:33
@Melody Does anyone truly care about the Darboux integral though? Honest question -- I've never really used it for anything beyond a simplifying assumption leading up to the Riemann integral.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:35
Isn't it not sometimes easier to show that a function is Darboux integral, and to compute it's integral that way? Sometimes you lose simplicity when you generalize.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:42
@Melody Perhaps, I'm just saying that I've never done it, except perhaps when I was taking my low-powered calculus course way back when. My real analysis course focused heavily on Riemann integration; we didn't fall back on Darboux at all.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
Well actually I was looking for a way to determine whether or not without graphing it, as graphing it isn't always an option. Is there something about the function itself that can tell me whether it's integral will be undefined/nonexistent anywhere?
– James Ronald
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
It depends on your intergral though. If we're using an improper Riemann Integral then the integral exists, but if we're using Darboux integral then it does not, for Darboux requires boundedness for the upper/lower sums to make sense. In general I agree with your sentiment though.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:33
It depends on your intergral though. If we're using an improper Riemann Integral then the integral exists, but if we're using Darboux integral then it does not, for Darboux requires boundedness for the upper/lower sums to make sense. In general I agree with your sentiment though.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:33
@Melody Does anyone truly care about the Darboux integral though? Honest question -- I've never really used it for anything beyond a simplifying assumption leading up to the Riemann integral.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:35
@Melody Does anyone truly care about the Darboux integral though? Honest question -- I've never really used it for anything beyond a simplifying assumption leading up to the Riemann integral.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:35
Isn't it not sometimes easier to show that a function is Darboux integral, and to compute it's integral that way? Sometimes you lose simplicity when you generalize.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:42
Isn't it not sometimes easier to show that a function is Darboux integral, and to compute it's integral that way? Sometimes you lose simplicity when you generalize.
– Melody
Dec 9 '18 at 20:42
@Melody Perhaps, I'm just saying that I've never done it, except perhaps when I was taking my low-powered calculus course way back when. My real analysis course focused heavily on Riemann integration; we didn't fall back on Darboux at all.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
@Melody Perhaps, I'm just saying that I've never done it, except perhaps when I was taking my low-powered calculus course way back when. My real analysis course focused heavily on Riemann integration; we didn't fall back on Darboux at all.
– GenericMathematician
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
Well actually I was looking for a way to determine whether or not without graphing it, as graphing it isn't always an option. Is there something about the function itself that can tell me whether it's integral will be undefined/nonexistent anywhere?
– James Ronald
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
Well actually I was looking for a way to determine whether or not without graphing it, as graphing it isn't always an option. Is there something about the function itself that can tell me whether it's integral will be undefined/nonexistent anywhere?
– James Ronald
Dec 9 '18 at 20:44
|
show 5 more comments
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032946%2fis-there-a-way-to-tell-whether-an-integral-exists-or-not-without-graphing-the-fu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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