Exercise 1: Differentiating an accumulation: read the integrand at the moving bound
Let be continuous and let : accumulates the signed area under from to . The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, part 1 (FTC 1), says that is differentiable and . The letter is a dummy variable; the variable lives ONLY in the bound, and that is the whole chapter in one sentence.
The figure shows as the shaded area and, to its right, the thin strip between and .
- a) Using the figure, explain in two or three sentences why : what is , and why is it close to ?
- b) Find for , then . Why is it pointless to look for an antiderivative of first?
- c) Find for .
- d) Find for , , and simplify.
- e) Check FTC 1 on a case you can also compute: for , let . Compute with an antiderivative, differentiate it, and compare with the answer given by FTC 1 and the chain rule.
Show the solution
Answers
- a) , the strip, squeezed between and with .
- b) , ; no antiderivative is needed, and no elementary one exists.
- c)
- d)
- e) , , the same as .
a) By additivity of the integral, : exactly the thin strip of the figure. On the continuous function reaches a minimum and a maximum , so the strip lies between two rectangles: for . Dividing by gives . As the interval shrinks to the point , and by continuity both and tend to : the squeeze theorem gives (the case is the same with the inequalities reversed). In words: at , the area grows at the rate given by the HEIGHT of the curve at . This is the one place where the continuity of is used, and it is why FTC 1 requires it.
b) is continuous for , so on every interval with , and FTC 1 applies directly: . Then . Looking for an antiderivative first is a waste twice over: FTC 1 never needs one, since the answer is read off the integrand, and has no antiderivative expressible with elementary functions anyway. An integrand chosen to be non-integrable is a signal: the question is about FTC 1, not about FTC 2. The classic slip is to write , subtracting the value at the lower bound as if it were an evaluation. A CONSTANT lower bound contributes nothing to the derivative.
c) FTC 1 is stated with the variable in the UPPER bound, so first swap the bounds: . The integrand is continuous everywhere, so . Sanity check with the picture: moving the lower bound to the right REMOVES area where , so should decrease there, and the minus sign says exactly that. Two wrong answers are common: , the sign lost, and , an evaluation instead of a derivative; is a constant with nothing to do with the rate.
d) Here the upper bound is a function of . Write with and . By FTC 1, , and by the chain rule . The integrand is evaluated AT THE BOUND , not at : would be wrong. And the factor , the derivative of the bound, is owed every time the bound is not simply ; forgetting it is the most frequent loss on this question, usually half the marks. Note that has no elementary antiderivative either.
e) For we have , so is continuous on the interval between and , and is an antiderivative there: . The absolute value is not decoration: for , , while is not even defined. Differentiating, for every . By FTC 1 and the chain rule, . The two routes agree, as they must: FTC 1 is the shortcut that skips the antiderivative, and here it can be checked because the antiderivative happens to be known.