Results 1 to 11 of 11

Math Help - Integration By Parts - Proof

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2011
    Posts
    3

    Integration By Parts - Proof

    Hi Guys,

    I've had a search for "Integration by parts" and couldn't quite find what I was looking for... so apologies if this is actually somewhere in the forum and I've just missed it.

    My Question has two parts.

    Firstly a (possibly) silly sanity check...
    \int dx/dy = y + C
    This is correct right?

    Assuming this is correct, from the product rule we have

    dy/dy = v.du/dx + u.dv/dx

    So if we integrate both sides we have

    LHS = y = uv

    But I'm puzzled by the integration of the RHS

    The proof I'm reading gives

     RHS = \int u.dv/dx.dx + \int v.du/dx.dx<br />
      = \int u.dv + \int v.du
    So, where I'm a little stuck is why
    \int u.dv/dx.dx \neq  uv
    I.e why does
    \int dv/dx.dx \neq v?

    Any help would be much appreciated. Sorry for the rubbish latex btw, most of the little image things under the latex cheat sheet haven't loaded.


    Thanks in advance!
    James
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    USA
    Posts
    3,110
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by jameshume View Post
    \int dx/dy = y + C
    This is correct right?
    Not quite sure what the even means.

    Think on the Product Rule of Differentiation.

    Given u(x) and v(x), we have d(u*v) = u*dv + v*du.

    Simply rearrange. d(u*v) - u*dv = v*du

    Antiderivatives with respect to x

    \int d(u*v) - \int u*dv = \int v*du

    or

    u*v - \int u*dv = \int v*du

    which should look familiar.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2011
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by TKHunny View Post
    Not quite sure what the even means.

    Think on the Product Rule of Differentiation.

    Given u(x) and v(x), we have d(u*v) = u*dv + v*du.

    Simply rearrange. d(u*v) - u*dv = v*du

    Antiderivatives with respect to x

    \int d(u*v) - \int u*dv = \int v*du

    or

    u*v - \int u*dv = \int v*du

    which should look familiar.
    Hi TKH,

    Thanks for your reply. Couple of typos there I hadn't spotted in my original post so no wonder your confusion at the first satement...
    \int \frac{dy}{dx} dx = y + C

    Starting with the product rule

     \frac{d}{dx}(uv) = v\frac{du}{dx} + u\frac{dv}{dx}

    So, again I made a mistake in what I had written, kinda, in that I should have written it as above, where y = uv.

    So I would expect
    \int \frac{d}{dx}(uv) dx = uv

    I'm happy with that bit...

    What I don't really get is
    \int u\frac{dv}{dx} dx becomes \int u dv?

    I had a slight realisation when writing this and realised why it couldn't become uv, but equally I don't understand the apparent cancelling of the "d" terms. I could understand this if they were \delta s and therefore could be algebraically manipulated in this way.

    I'm gonna go back to have a little think, but if you have any illuminating answers in the mean time I'd love to hear them.

    THanks agin,
    James
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    49
    You can always do without the fractional notation, which can be misleading anyway (but useful, too!). Just in case a picture helps...



    ... is lazy integration by parts, doing without u and v.



    ... is the product rule, where straight lines differentiate downwards (integrate up) with respect to x.

    Regarding one special way that Leibniz notation is suggestive in parts in particular, I'll locate an old thread if I can. (Edit: here) Anyway, though...



    _________________________________________

    Don't integrate - balloontegrate!

    Balloon Calculus; standard integrals, derivatives and methods

    Balloon Calculus Drawing with LaTeX and Asymptote!
    Last edited by tom@ballooncalculus; May 8th 2011 at 12:50 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,384
    Thanks
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by jameshume View Post
    Hi TKH,

    Thanks for your reply. Couple of typos there I hadn't spotted in my original post so no wonder your confusion at the first satement...
    \int \frac{dy}{dx} dx = y + C

    Starting with the product rule

     \frac{d}{dx}(uv) = v\frac{du}{dx} + u\frac{dv}{dx}

    So, again I made a mistake in what I had written, kinda, in that I should have written it as above, where y = uv.

    So I would expect
    \int \frac{d}{dx}(uv) dx = uv

    I'm happy with that bit...

    What I don't really get is
    \int u\frac{dv}{dx} dx becomes \int u dv?

    I had a slight realisation when writing this and realised why it couldn't become uv, but equally I don't understand the apparent cancelling of the "d" terms. I could understand this if they were \delta s and therefore could be algebraically manipulated in this way.

    I'm gonna go back to have a little think, but if you have any illuminating answers in the mean time I'd love to hear them.

    THanks agin,
    James
    dv = (du/dx)dx is often taken as the definition of dv. naively, this means "a little bit of change in v" is v'(x) (the rate of change of v w.r.t. x) times "a little bit of change in x".

    differentials aren't quite numbers, but some of the same rules apply.

    the integral of v'(x) (or dv/dx) w.r.t. x (hence the "dx" which is for all intents and purposes a "dummy symbol" just to indicate which variable we're integrating a function of) is indeed v (+C).

    however, the integral of (uv)' isn't uv, because we're not integrating over "d(uv)" but "dx". put another way, you can regard d(uv) as udv + vdu,

    split the integral and you get 2, one where we're integrating u w.r.t. v, and another where we're integrating v w.r.t. u:

    uv = ∫d(uv) = ∫(udv + vdu) = ∫udv + ∫vdu.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    11,513
    Thanks
    1404
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2011
    Posts
    3

    Thanks

    Hey Guys,

    Wow, loads of replies so thank you to you all! I think a penny has dropped for me... Can someone verify the following for me so I can be confident I have properly understood

    \frac{d}{dx}(uv) = u\frac{dv}{dx} + v\frac{du}{dx}\\\\ \therefore uv =  \int u\frac{dv}{dx} + \int v\frac{du}{dx}

    Then...
    \int u\frac{dv}{dx} = uv - \int v\frac{du}{dx}
    So the re-arrangement was fine. Then elsewhere I read the following...

    For convenience can be memorised as...
    \int u.dv = uv - \int v.du
    In this form it is easier to remember, but the previous line gives its meaning in detail
    Then having worked through some more examples I have understood better how the method works. My hang up was the line \int u.dv = uv - \int v.du. Am I correct in thinking that this is just a memory peg... I.e., written like that it doesn't mean integrate u w.r.t v, it's just a memory peg and the full meaning is integrate u*the differential coefficient of v with respect to x?? (Although given "Prove-it's graph I'm a little doubtful)

    Thanks again for all your help guys... really appreciate it!

    James
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by jameshume View Post
    My hang up was the line \int u.dv = uv - \int v.du. Am I correct in thinking that this is just a memory peg... I.e., written like that it doesn't mean integrate u w.r.t v, it's just a memory peg and the full meaning is integrate u*the differential coefficient of v with respect to x?? (Although given "Prove-it's graph I'm a little doubtful)
    James
    No, it can mean either way, i.e. either u w.r.t. v or else u times the derivative of v and all w.r.t. x. (Edit: all w.r.t. x as long as the dx is given as well, as Prove It has clarified below.) Prove It's graph helps to illuminate the relationship with a definite integral. And this one I made earlier also kind of fits his graph:



    See also the discussion I linked to above (the guy's question was very similar to yours).
    Last edited by tom@ballooncalculus; May 9th 2011 at 04:37 AM. Reason: dx
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    11,513
    Thanks
    1404
    Quote Originally Posted by jameshume View Post
    \frac{d}{dx}(uv) = u\frac{dv}{dx} + v\frac{du}{dx}\\\\ \therefore uv =  \int u\frac{dv}{dx} + \int v\frac{du}{dx}
    Should be \displaystyle uv = \int{u\,\frac{dv}{dx}\,dx} + \int{v\,\frac{du}{dx}\,dx}

    Then...
    \int u\frac{dv}{dx} = uv - \int v\frac{du}{dx}
    Should be \displaystyle \int{u\,\frac{dv}{dx}\,dx} = uv - \int{v\,\frac{du}{dx}\,dx}.


    I think you can see now why \displaystyle \frac{dv}{dx}\,dx is shortened to \displaystyle dv and why \displaystyle \frac{du}{dx}\,dx is shortened to \displaystyle du.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,384
    Thanks
    750
    the thing to remember is that u and v are not "independent variables" they both are functions of some other variable (we have been using "x").

    so if u = e^x, for example, du is not "dx", but rather e^x dx. the key to using integration by parts, is to notice when "one part" is actually the derivative of something you already know.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    49
    Usually, yes...


    Quote Originally Posted by Deveno View Post
    the thing to remember is that u and v are not "independent variables" they both are functions of some other variable (we have been using "x").

    so if u = e^x, for example, du is not "dx", but rather e^x dx. the key to using integration by parts, is to notice when "one part" is actually the derivative of something you already know.

    ... or, in other words...




    (But you can use the balloons without u and v. )


    On the other hand, one attraction of the fraction notation is that 'cancelling' is suggestive of how the chain rule does indeed allow us to read

    \int\ u\ dv = uv - \int v\ du

    as

    \int\ u\ \mathrm{wrt}\ v = uv - \int v\ \mathrm{wrt}\ u

    i.e.

    \int x\ \mathrm{wrt}\ y = xy - \int y\ \mathrm{wrt}\ x


    Just in case we didn't trust cancelling, here's another view of how the chain rule does it...


    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 11th 2012, 02:30 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 2nd 2010, 12:27 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 23rd 2010, 03:01 PM
  4. Proof of integration by parts formula
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 11th 2010, 01:16 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 17th 2009, 06:55 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum