Download Integration by Substitution: Second Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and Antiderivatives and more Exams Calculus in PDF only on Docsity!
Basic Integration Formulas and the Substitution
Rule
1 The second fundamental theorem of integral calculus
Recall from the last lecture the second fundamental theorem of integral calculus.
Theorem Let f(x) be a continuous function on the interval [a,b]. Let F(x) be any
function with the property that
F
· ( x) = f(x)
Then
b
a
f (x) dx = F(b) - F(a)
2 Antiderivatives
Let us now see how the second fundamental theorem gets applied to solve area problems.
Example Compute
2 0
1 0
x
2
dx
According to the theorem, we need to find a function F(x) with the property
F
· ( x) = 1/x
2
Such a function is called an anti-derivative of 1/x
2 = x
- . We can see that one possible
solution is
F(x) = -x
From the theorem
2 0
1 0
x
2
dx = F(20) - F(10) = (-(20)
Unfortunately, this anti-differentiation process is not always easy to do.
∫
1
0
1 - x
2 dx
To solve this, we need an anti-derivative
F
· ( x) = 1 - x
2
There is no obvious anti-derivative for this function. Given the fact that many
anti-derivative problems are hard to do, we will be spending a good chunk of this course
working out techniques for computing anti-derivatives.
Antiderivative notation
Since we are going to be computing antiderivatives, one of the first things we are going to
need is a convenient notation for antidifferentiation. The notation that is commonly used
for the operation of antidifferentiation is called the indefinite integral.
∫ f ( x) dx = F(x) õ F
· ( x) = f(x)
Antiderivatives we can compute
One way to get a start on the problem of computing antiderivatives is to write down the
derivatives of some standard functions and then adjust those formulas to make them
antidifferentiation formulas.
f ( x)
x
n
x
e
x
cos x
sin x
1 + x
2
F( x) = ∫ f ( x) dx
x
n + 1
n + 1
ln x
e
x
sin x
tan
(There is a more extensive list of anti-differentiation formulas on page 406 of the text.)
Another useful tool for computing antiderivatives is related to the fact that the derivative
of a sum is a sum of derivatives:
∫ f ( x) + g ( x) dx = ∫ f ( x) dx + ∫ g ( x) dx
The chain rule says that when we take the derivative of one function composed with
another the result is the derivative of the outer function times the derivative of the inner
function. How does this lead to an integration formula? Well, suppose you can figure out
the original f(x) from f
· ( x) by integrating:
d
dx
f (x) = f
· (x)
What happens when you try to differentiate f (g(x))?
(f(g(x)))
· = f
· (g(x)) g
· (x) (1)
What does that tell us? Integrating both sides of (1) gives
∫ f
· (g(x)) g
· (x) dx = f (g(x))
The formula forms the basis for a method of integration called the substitution method.
Some simple examples
Here are some simple examples where you can apply this technique.
Consider the integral
∫ (2 x + 1 )
3 dx
To view the thing we are integrating as a composition, introduce the functions
f
· (x) = x
3 , g (x) = 2 x + 1
This does the job in the sense that
f
· (g(x)) = ( 2 x + 1 )
3
but recall that the pattern we have to try and force the problem into is
∫ f
· (g(x)) g
· (x) dx
What we need to provide is the missing g
· (x) term. From what we said above we have
g
· (x) = 2
Introducing a factor of 2 into the problem is easy - we just have to balance it with a
corresponding factor of 1/2:
∫ ( 2 x + 1 )
3 2 dx
This now matches the desired form. The next thing we have to do is to recover the
original f(x) from f
· ( x) by finding an anti-derivative.
d
dx
f (x) = f
· (x) = x
3
f (x) =
x
4
Putting all of this together with the formula derived above
∫ f
· (g(x)) g
· (x) dx = f (g(x))
gives
∫ ( 2 x + 1 )
3 2 dx =
( 2 x + 1 )
For the next example consider
∫
1 + x
dx
Although it is a little more difficult to come up with at first, there is a composition here:
f
· (x) = 1/x , g (x) = 1 + x
Since g
· (x) = 1, we don't have to manufacture the missing g
· (x) term
f
· (g(x)) g
· (x) =
1 + x
We also need the anti-derivative of f
· ( x)
∫ f
· (x) dx = ∫ 1/x dx = ln x = f (x)
∫ f
· (g(x)) g
· (x) dx = f (g(x))
∫
1 + x
2
dx = arctan x + c
f (x) = arctan x
Putting this all together gives us
∫ f
· (g(x)) g
· (x) dx = f (g(x))
∫
1 + x
4
( 2 x) dx =
arctan(x
2 )
Summary of the method
Look for something in the integrand that looks like the composition of
two functions, f
· (g(x)).
Find something in the integrand that looks like the derivative of the inner
function, g
· (x). If necessary, throw in constant factors needed to create
the g
· (x) term.
Find the antiderivative of f
·
- (x).
The antiderivative of f
· (g(x)) g
·
- (x) is f(g(x)).
4 Commonly used notation for substitution
I used f and g above to make clear the origins of this newest method in the chain rule. In
practice, people tend to use slightly different notation which suggests a slightly different
way to understand what is going on here. Here is an example of that method in use.
Consider the integral
∫ e
3 x dx
The form of the integrand suggest that we try to transform the problem into something
like
∫ e
u du
The substitution that gets this to happen is
u = 3 x
We need a derivative in order to apply this method, so we compute
du
dx
With these substitutions, the original integral looks like
∫ e
u 1 dx =
∫ e
u 3 dx =
∫ e
u du
dx
dx
Can we turn this integral in x into an integral in u? The answer is yes: the key
requirement is that we have the
du
dx
dx combination. By the chain rule, those two pieces
can be combined into a single du, completing the transition to an integral in u instead of
x.
∫ f (u)
du
dx
dx = ∫ f (u) du
At this point, we complete the change of variables:
∫ e
3 x dx =
∫ e
u 3 dx =
∫ e
u du =
e
u
e
3 x
5 Substitution and Definite Integrals
We have seen that an appropriately chosen substitution can make an anti-differentiation
problem doable. Something to watch for is the interaction between substitution and
definite integrals. Consider the following example.
∫
1
x 1 - x
2 dx
There are two approaches we can take in solving this problem:
Use substitution to compute the antiderivative and then use the
anti-derivative to solve the definite integral.
u = 1 - x
2
∫ 2 x dx = x
2
A common consequence of this effect is that doing the same problem in two different
ways can produce two answers that appear to be very different. As long as we can show
that the two answers differ by a constant, both answers are legitimate. This phenomenon
is most pronounced when working with trig functions.
Here is an example to demonstrate this effect. Consider the integral
∫ sin( 2 x) dx
The form of the integrand suggests that we transform the problem into something like
∫ sin u du = - cos u + C
The substitution we need to do this is
u = 2 x
du
dx
To get the derivative term we need we will have to introduce a factor of 1/2 to balance the
∫ sin( 2 x) 2 dx =
∫ sin u
du
dx
dx =
∫ sin u du = -
cos( 2 x) + C
Here is a different approach. We begin by using a trig identity to change the form of the
problem.
∫ sin (2 x) dx = ∫ 2 sin x cos x dx
The latter form can be handled by composition by using
g(x) = sin x
g
· ( x) = cos x
f
· ( x) = 2 x
f(x) = x
2
This leads to
∫ 2 sin x cos x dx = ∫ f
· ( g ( x)) g
· ( x) dx = f(g(x)) + C = (sin x)
2
This appears to be very different from the earlier answer. However, some manipulation
with trig identities will bring the two forms closer together.
cos( 2 x) = -
(cos
2 x - sin
2 x) = -
((1 - sin
2 x) - sin
2 x) = -
2 x
The difference between the two solutions is now just -1/2, which is acceptable.
7 Homework Problems
Section 5.4: 6, 8, 10, 26, 36
Section 5.5: 12, 32, 44, 58, 64
