How can we visualise integration by substitution?
$begingroup$
When we integrate a function with respect to dx, we are breaking the area under the function into many pieces of width dx and finding the area of each piece and then take the limit of the sum as dx becomes 0. In this case dx is constant so this is pretty intuitive.
When we use u-substitution, we replace dx with du. But clearly du is not constant as it changes with x. To me, this doesn't make sense because how do we integrate with respect to something that is not constant? Would appreciate if someone can give a visualisation of what is going on (graphically) when we integrate by substitution. For instance if we graph out x, g(x) and f(x) parametrically, how can we show that ∫f(u)du and ∫f(g(x)*g'(x)dx are the same thing?
I also found this related thread: Is there a way to graphically visually integration by substitution?, but I don't really understand the answer.
calculus integration substitution
asked Nov 25 '18 at 12:31
Luo ZeyuanLuo Zeyuan
33
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When we integrate a function with respect to dx, we are breaking the area under the function into many pieces of width dx and finding the area of each piece and then take the limit of the sum as dx becomes 0. In this case dx is constant so this is pretty intuitive.
When we use u-substitution, we replace dx with du. But clearly du is not constant as it changes with x. To me, this doesn't make sense because how do we integrate with respect to something that is not constant? Would appreciate if someone can give a visualisation of what is going on (graphically) when we integrate by substitution. For instance if we graph out x, g(x) and f(x) parametrically, how can we show that ∫f(u)du and ∫f(g(x)*g'(x)dx are the same thing?
I also found this related thread: Is there a way to graphically visually integration by substitution?, but I don't really understand the answer.
calculus integration substitution
asked Nov 25 '18 at 12:31
Luo ZeyuanLuo Zeyuan
33
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In the integration notation, you can interpret "dx" to mean as "with respect to x" and not as a constant. "dx" may be thought of as a constant when you use the Sum notation only as you have said. The concept of area under the curve is only valid in bound integral with limits, otherwise, the integration that is indefinite, is related to anti-derivative. A more precise history and terminology can be found in the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Substitution works because when you choose u(x) = sin(x), you integrate u(x) with respect to "u" , so we use "du".
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
$begingroup$
Yes. In this case, I think it would be more convenient to treat dx as a constant, since it is easier to visualise on a graph.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
1
$begingroup$
Not everything can be easily visualized and "dx" IS NOT a constant in integration. A constant is like 5,4...etc.
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:48
$begingroup$
Nevermind, I found the proof, thanks for helping.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 13:44
1
$begingroup$
I don't recommend thinking of $dx$ as being necessarily constant. To integrate a function over an interval, you chop the interval up into tiny pieces, compute the contribution of each piece, and sum up these individual contributions. (The integral is a limit of sums like this.) The tiny pieces do not all have to have the same size. In fact, it is unnatural to require the tiny pieces to all have the same size.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Nov 25 '18 at 14:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When we integrate a function with respect to dx, we are breaking the area under the function into many pieces of width dx and finding the area of each piece and then take the limit of the sum as dx becomes 0. In this case dx is constant so this is pretty intuitive.
When we use u-substitution, we replace dx with du. But clearly du is not constant as it changes with x. To me, this doesn't make sense because how do we integrate with respect to something that is not constant? Would appreciate if someone can give a visualisation of what is going on (graphically) when we integrate by substitution. For instance if we graph out x, g(x) and f(x) parametrically, how can we show that ∫f(u)du and ∫f(g(x)*g'(x)dx are the same thing?
I also found this related thread: Is there a way to graphically visually integration by substitution?, but I don't really understand the answer.
calculus integration substitution
asked Nov 25 '18 at 12:31
Luo ZeyuanLuo Zeyuan
33
$endgroup$
When we integrate a function with respect to dx, we are breaking the area under the function into many pieces of width dx and finding the area of each piece and then take the limit of the sum as dx becomes 0. In this case dx is constant so this is pretty intuitive.
When we use u-substitution, we replace dx with du. But clearly du is not constant as it changes with x. To me, this doesn't make sense because how do we integrate with respect to something that is not constant? Would appreciate if someone can give a visualisation of what is going on (graphically) when we integrate by substitution. For instance if we graph out x, g(x) and f(x) parametrically, how can we show that ∫f(u)du and ∫f(g(x)*g'(x)dx are the same thing?
I also found this related thread: Is there a way to graphically visually integration by substitution?, but I don't really understand the answer.
calculus integration substitution
calculus integration substitution
asked Nov 25 '18 at 12:31
Luo ZeyuanLuo Zeyuan
33
asked Nov 25 '18 at 12:31
Luo ZeyuanLuo Zeyuan
33
edited Dec 23 '18 at 6:01
Luo Zeyuan
asked Nov 25 '18 at 12:31
Luo ZeyuanLuo Zeyuan
33
asked Nov 25 '18 at 12:31
Luo ZeyuanLuo Zeyuan
33
asked Nov 25 '18 at 12:31
Luo ZeyuanLuo Zeyuan
33
33
$begingroup$
In the integration notation, you can interpret "dx" to mean as "with respect to x" and not as a constant. "dx" may be thought of as a constant when you use the Sum notation only as you have said. The concept of area under the curve is only valid in bound integral with limits, otherwise, the integration that is indefinite, is related to anti-derivative. A more precise history and terminology can be found in the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Substitution works because when you choose u(x) = sin(x), you integrate u(x) with respect to "u" , so we use "du".
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
$begingroup$
Yes. In this case, I think it would be more convenient to treat dx as a constant, since it is easier to visualise on a graph.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
1
$begingroup$
Not everything can be easily visualized and "dx" IS NOT a constant in integration. A constant is like 5,4...etc.
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:48
$begingroup$
Nevermind, I found the proof, thanks for helping.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 13:44
1
$begingroup$
I don't recommend thinking of $dx$ as being necessarily constant. To integrate a function over an interval, you chop the interval up into tiny pieces, compute the contribution of each piece, and sum up these individual contributions. (The integral is a limit of sums like this.) The tiny pieces do not all have to have the same size. In fact, it is unnatural to require the tiny pieces to all have the same size.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Nov 25 '18 at 14:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the integration notation, you can interpret "dx" to mean as "with respect to x" and not as a constant. "dx" may be thought of as a constant when you use the Sum notation only as you have said. The concept of area under the curve is only valid in bound integral with limits, otherwise, the integration that is indefinite, is related to anti-derivative. A more precise history and terminology can be found in the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Substitution works because when you choose u(x) = sin(x), you integrate u(x) with respect to "u" , so we use "du".
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
$begingroup$
Yes. In this case, I think it would be more convenient to treat dx as a constant, since it is easier to visualise on a graph.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
1
$begingroup$
Not everything can be easily visualized and "dx" IS NOT a constant in integration. A constant is like 5,4...etc.
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:48
$begingroup$
Nevermind, I found the proof, thanks for helping.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 13:44
1
$begingroup$
I don't recommend thinking of $dx$ as being necessarily constant. To integrate a function over an interval, you chop the interval up into tiny pieces, compute the contribution of each piece, and sum up these individual contributions. (The integral is a limit of sums like this.) The tiny pieces do not all have to have the same size. In fact, it is unnatural to require the tiny pieces to all have the same size.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Nov 25 '18 at 14:02
$begingroup$
In the integration notation, you can interpret "dx" to mean as "with respect to x" and not as a constant. "dx" may be thought of as a constant when you use the Sum notation only as you have said. The concept of area under the curve is only valid in bound integral with limits, otherwise, the integration that is indefinite, is related to anti-derivative. A more precise history and terminology can be found in the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Substitution works because when you choose u(x) = sin(x), you integrate u(x) with respect to "u" , so we use "du".
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
$begingroup$
In the integration notation, you can interpret "dx" to mean as "with respect to x" and not as a constant. "dx" may be thought of as a constant when you use the Sum notation only as you have said. The concept of area under the curve is only valid in bound integral with limits, otherwise, the integration that is indefinite, is related to anti-derivative. A more precise history and terminology can be found in the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Substitution works because when you choose u(x) = sin(x), you integrate u(x) with respect to "u" , so we use "du".
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
$begingroup$
Yes. In this case, I think it would be more convenient to treat dx as a constant, since it is easier to visualise on a graph.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
$begingroup$
Yes. In this case, I think it would be more convenient to treat dx as a constant, since it is easier to visualise on a graph.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
1
1
$begingroup$
Not everything can be easily visualized and "dx" IS NOT a constant in integration. A constant is like 5,4...etc.
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:48
$begingroup$
Not everything can be easily visualized and "dx" IS NOT a constant in integration. A constant is like 5,4...etc.
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:48
$begingroup$
Nevermind, I found the proof, thanks for helping.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 13:44
$begingroup$
Nevermind, I found the proof, thanks for helping.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 13:44
1
1
$begingroup$
I don't recommend thinking of $dx$ as being necessarily constant. To integrate a function over an interval, you chop the interval up into tiny pieces, compute the contribution of each piece, and sum up these individual contributions. (The integral is a limit of sums like this.) The tiny pieces do not all have to have the same size. In fact, it is unnatural to require the tiny pieces to all have the same size.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Nov 25 '18 at 14:02
$begingroup$
I don't recommend thinking of $dx$ as being necessarily constant. To integrate a function over an interval, you chop the interval up into tiny pieces, compute the contribution of each piece, and sum up these individual contributions. (The integral is a limit of sums like this.) The tiny pieces do not all have to have the same size. In fact, it is unnatural to require the tiny pieces to all have the same size.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Nov 25 '18 at 14:02
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Of course the indefinite integrals $int f(x)>dx$ and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx$ are not the same. As an example, let $f(x):=x$ and $g(x):=x^2$. Then $int f(x)>dx={1over2}x^2+C$, and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx={1over2}x^4+C$.
The correct way to write this substitution formula for indefinite integrals is
$$int fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int f(x)>dxbiggr|_{x:=g(t)} .tag{1}$$
Formula $(1)$ is an immediate consequence of the chain rule. I don't think there is a graphical visualization.
It is another thing with the substitution formula for definite integrals:
$$int_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx .$$
Here we can invoke Riemann sums and draw narrow rectangles. In this way we arrive at the following chain of approximations:
$$eqalign{int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx&approxsum_{k=1}^N f(xi_k)(x_k-x_{k-1})cr &approxsum_{k=1}^N fbigl(g(tau_k)bigr)>g'(tau_k)>(t_k-t_{k-1})cr &approxint_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt .cr}$$
Here we have assumed that the partition points are $x_k=g(t_k)$, and the sampling points are $xi_k=g(tau_k)$. Furthermore we have used the MVT formula $x_k-x_{k-1}approx g'(tau_k)(t_k-t_{k-1})$ in order to handle the width of corresponding rectangles on the $x$-, resp., the $t$-axis.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:56
Christian BlatterChristian Blatter
172k7113326
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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%2f3012773%2fhow-can-we-visualise-integration-by-substitution%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
$begingroup$
Of course the indefinite integrals $int f(x)>dx$ and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx$ are not the same. As an example, let $f(x):=x$ and $g(x):=x^2$. Then $int f(x)>dx={1over2}x^2+C$, and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx={1over2}x^4+C$.
The correct way to write this substitution formula for indefinite integrals is
$$int fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int f(x)>dxbiggr|_{x:=g(t)} .tag{1}$$
Formula $(1)$ is an immediate consequence of the chain rule. I don't think there is a graphical visualization.
It is another thing with the substitution formula for definite integrals:
$$int_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx .$$
Here we can invoke Riemann sums and draw narrow rectangles. In this way we arrive at the following chain of approximations:
$$eqalign{int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx&approxsum_{k=1}^N f(xi_k)(x_k-x_{k-1})cr &approxsum_{k=1}^N fbigl(g(tau_k)bigr)>g'(tau_k)>(t_k-t_{k-1})cr &approxint_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt .cr}$$
Here we have assumed that the partition points are $x_k=g(t_k)$, and the sampling points are $xi_k=g(tau_k)$. Furthermore we have used the MVT formula $x_k-x_{k-1}approx g'(tau_k)(t_k-t_{k-1})$ in order to handle the width of corresponding rectangles on the $x$-, resp., the $t$-axis.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:56
Christian BlatterChristian Blatter
172k7113326
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Of course the indefinite integrals $int f(x)>dx$ and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx$ are not the same. As an example, let $f(x):=x$ and $g(x):=x^2$. Then $int f(x)>dx={1over2}x^2+C$, and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx={1over2}x^4+C$.
The correct way to write this substitution formula for indefinite integrals is
$$int fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int f(x)>dxbiggr|_{x:=g(t)} .tag{1}$$
Formula $(1)$ is an immediate consequence of the chain rule. I don't think there is a graphical visualization.
It is another thing with the substitution formula for definite integrals:
$$int_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx .$$
Here we can invoke Riemann sums and draw narrow rectangles. In this way we arrive at the following chain of approximations:
$$eqalign{int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx&approxsum_{k=1}^N f(xi_k)(x_k-x_{k-1})cr &approxsum_{k=1}^N fbigl(g(tau_k)bigr)>g'(tau_k)>(t_k-t_{k-1})cr &approxint_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt .cr}$$
Here we have assumed that the partition points are $x_k=g(t_k)$, and the sampling points are $xi_k=g(tau_k)$. Furthermore we have used the MVT formula $x_k-x_{k-1}approx g'(tau_k)(t_k-t_{k-1})$ in order to handle the width of corresponding rectangles on the $x$-, resp., the $t$-axis.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:56
Christian BlatterChristian Blatter
172k7113326
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Of course the indefinite integrals $int f(x)>dx$ and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx$ are not the same. As an example, let $f(x):=x$ and $g(x):=x^2$. Then $int f(x)>dx={1over2}x^2+C$, and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx={1over2}x^4+C$.
The correct way to write this substitution formula for indefinite integrals is
$$int fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int f(x)>dxbiggr|_{x:=g(t)} .tag{1}$$
Formula $(1)$ is an immediate consequence of the chain rule. I don't think there is a graphical visualization.
It is another thing with the substitution formula for definite integrals:
$$int_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx .$$
Here we can invoke Riemann sums and draw narrow rectangles. In this way we arrive at the following chain of approximations:
$$eqalign{int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx&approxsum_{k=1}^N f(xi_k)(x_k-x_{k-1})cr &approxsum_{k=1}^N fbigl(g(tau_k)bigr)>g'(tau_k)>(t_k-t_{k-1})cr &approxint_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt .cr}$$
Here we have assumed that the partition points are $x_k=g(t_k)$, and the sampling points are $xi_k=g(tau_k)$. Furthermore we have used the MVT formula $x_k-x_{k-1}approx g'(tau_k)(t_k-t_{k-1})$ in order to handle the width of corresponding rectangles on the $x$-, resp., the $t$-axis.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:56
Christian BlatterChristian Blatter
172k7113326
$endgroup$
Of course the indefinite integrals $int f(x)>dx$ and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx$ are not the same. As an example, let $f(x):=x$ and $g(x):=x^2$. Then $int f(x)>dx={1over2}x^2+C$, and $int fbigl(g(x)bigr)>g'(x)>dx={1over2}x^4+C$.
The correct way to write this substitution formula for indefinite integrals is
$$int fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int f(x)>dxbiggr|_{x:=g(t)} .tag{1}$$
Formula $(1)$ is an immediate consequence of the chain rule. I don't think there is a graphical visualization.
It is another thing with the substitution formula for definite integrals:
$$int_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt=int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx .$$
Here we can invoke Riemann sums and draw narrow rectangles. In this way we arrive at the following chain of approximations:
$$eqalign{int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)>dx&approxsum_{k=1}^N f(xi_k)(x_k-x_{k-1})cr &approxsum_{k=1}^N fbigl(g(tau_k)bigr)>g'(tau_k)>(t_k-t_{k-1})cr &approxint_a^b fbigl(g(t)bigr)>g'(t)>dt .cr}$$
Here we have assumed that the partition points are $x_k=g(t_k)$, and the sampling points are $xi_k=g(tau_k)$. Furthermore we have used the MVT formula $x_k-x_{k-1}approx g'(tau_k)(t_k-t_{k-1})$ in order to handle the width of corresponding rectangles on the $x$-, resp., the $t$-axis.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:56
Christian BlatterChristian Blatter
172k7113326
edited Nov 26 '18 at 10:29
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:56
Christian BlatterChristian Blatter
172k7113326
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:56
Christian BlatterChristian Blatter
172k7113326
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:56
Christian BlatterChristian Blatter
172k7113326
172k7113326
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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%2f3012773%2fhow-can-we-visualise-integration-by-substitution%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
$begingroup$
In the integration notation, you can interpret "dx" to mean as "with respect to x" and not as a constant. "dx" may be thought of as a constant when you use the Sum notation only as you have said. The concept of area under the curve is only valid in bound integral with limits, otherwise, the integration that is indefinite, is related to anti-derivative. A more precise history and terminology can be found in the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Substitution works because when you choose u(x) = sin(x), you integrate u(x) with respect to "u" , so we use "du".
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
$begingroup$
Yes. In this case, I think it would be more convenient to treat dx as a constant, since it is easier to visualise on a graph.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 12:46
1
$begingroup$
Not everything can be easily visualized and "dx" IS NOT a constant in integration. A constant is like 5,4...etc.
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Nov 25 '18 at 12:48
$begingroup$
Nevermind, I found the proof, thanks for helping.
$endgroup$
– Luo Zeyuan
Nov 25 '18 at 13:44
1
$begingroup$
I don't recommend thinking of $dx$ as being necessarily constant. To integrate a function over an interval, you chop the interval up into tiny pieces, compute the contribution of each piece, and sum up these individual contributions. (The integral is a limit of sums like this.) The tiny pieces do not all have to have the same size. In fact, it is unnatural to require the tiny pieces to all have the same size.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Nov 25 '18 at 14:02