Need help with calculus, show that: $frac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right] = -cf(c)$
$begingroup$
Given that $f(x)$ is the pdf of a continuous RV and $f(x)$ is positive everywhere, show that:
$$frac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right] = -cf(c)$$
Apparently you can solve this directly using the FTC but I can't see it.
So instead I tried using integration by parts:
$u = x quad quad dv = f(x) dx$
$du = dx quad quad v = F(x)$
So integration by parts yields
$$frac{d}{dc} left[ xF(x) biggvert_c^infty - int_c^infty F(x) dx right]$$
$$=frac{d}{dc} left[ infty F(infty) - cF(c) - G(infty) + G(c)right]$$
where I'm calling $G$ the integral of $F$, and then taking the derivative with respect to $c$ I get
$$=-F(c) - cf(c) + F(c)$$
$$= -cf(c)$$
which in theory is the right answer but I feel like I broke many rules.
My questions:
How to solve this directly using FTC?
Can you point out what is wrong with my attempt?
calculus probability algebra-precalculus
asked Jan 13 at 20:36
HJ_beginnerHJ_beginner
8861415
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given that $f(x)$ is the pdf of a continuous RV and $f(x)$ is positive everywhere, show that:
$$frac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right] = -cf(c)$$
Apparently you can solve this directly using the FTC but I can't see it.
So instead I tried using integration by parts:
$u = x quad quad dv = f(x) dx$
$du = dx quad quad v = F(x)$
So integration by parts yields
$$frac{d}{dc} left[ xF(x) biggvert_c^infty - int_c^infty F(x) dx right]$$
$$=frac{d}{dc} left[ infty F(infty) - cF(c) - G(infty) + G(c)right]$$
where I'm calling $G$ the integral of $F$, and then taking the derivative with respect to $c$ I get
$$=-F(c) - cf(c) + F(c)$$
$$= -cf(c)$$
which in theory is the right answer but I feel like I broke many rules.
My questions:
How to solve this directly using FTC?
Can you point out what is wrong with my attempt?
calculus probability algebra-precalculus
asked Jan 13 at 20:36
HJ_beginnerHJ_beginner
8861415
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given that $f(x)$ is the pdf of a continuous RV and $f(x)$ is positive everywhere, show that:
$$frac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right] = -cf(c)$$
Apparently you can solve this directly using the FTC but I can't see it.
So instead I tried using integration by parts:
$u = x quad quad dv = f(x) dx$
$du = dx quad quad v = F(x)$
So integration by parts yields
$$frac{d}{dc} left[ xF(x) biggvert_c^infty - int_c^infty F(x) dx right]$$
$$=frac{d}{dc} left[ infty F(infty) - cF(c) - G(infty) + G(c)right]$$
where I'm calling $G$ the integral of $F$, and then taking the derivative with respect to $c$ I get
$$=-F(c) - cf(c) + F(c)$$
$$= -cf(c)$$
which in theory is the right answer but I feel like I broke many rules.
My questions:
How to solve this directly using FTC?
Can you point out what is wrong with my attempt?
calculus probability algebra-precalculus
asked Jan 13 at 20:36
HJ_beginnerHJ_beginner
8861415
$endgroup$
Given that $f(x)$ is the pdf of a continuous RV and $f(x)$ is positive everywhere, show that:
$$frac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right] = -cf(c)$$
Apparently you can solve this directly using the FTC but I can't see it.
So instead I tried using integration by parts:
$u = x quad quad dv = f(x) dx$
$du = dx quad quad v = F(x)$
So integration by parts yields
$$frac{d}{dc} left[ xF(x) biggvert_c^infty - int_c^infty F(x) dx right]$$
$$=frac{d}{dc} left[ infty F(infty) - cF(c) - G(infty) + G(c)right]$$
where I'm calling $G$ the integral of $F$, and then taking the derivative with respect to $c$ I get
$$=-F(c) - cf(c) + F(c)$$
$$= -cf(c)$$
which in theory is the right answer but I feel like I broke many rules.
My questions:
How to solve this directly using FTC?
Can you point out what is wrong with my attempt?
calculus probability algebra-precalculus
calculus probability algebra-precalculus
asked Jan 13 at 20:36
HJ_beginnerHJ_beginner
8861415
asked Jan 13 at 20:36
HJ_beginnerHJ_beginner
8861415
asked Jan 13 at 20:36
HJ_beginnerHJ_beginner
8861415
asked Jan 13 at 20:36
HJ_beginnerHJ_beginner
8861415
asked Jan 13 at 20:36
HJ_beginnerHJ_beginner
8861415
8861415
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You are right to feel breaking many rules!! Note that both $xF(x) biggvert_c^infty $ and $ int_c^infty F(x) dx$ diverge for bounded $c$ and the result becomes ambiguous and inarguable. To fix this, consider $F(x)-1$ instead of $F(x)$.
It's easy to show that using FTC without bothering or caring about breaking laws. According to the definition of derivative we have:$$Ltriangleqfrac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right]{=lim_{hto 0}{int_{c+h}^infty x f(x) dx-int_{c}^infty x f(x) dxover h}\=lim_{hto 0}{-int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxover h}}$$also note that$$-(c+h)int_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dxle -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle -cint_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dx$$or by using the definition of CDF$$-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)le -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)$$from which we obtain$$lim_{hto 0}{-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}le Lle lim_{hto 0}{-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}$$since $f(c)=lim_{hto 0}{F(c+h)-F(c)over h}$ we obtain $$-cf(c)le Lle -cf(c)$$therefore $$L=-cf(c)$$ and the proof is complete.
answered Jan 13 at 20:52
Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz
15.3k3939
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate the formal proof and will spend time to digest it. Is there also a shortcut way to solve the problem... for example by inspection? I got that impression from the solution guide.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:04
1
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Well...May be after finding the limits, their value can be determined using L^Hopital's rule if we have already agreed to accept that :) That makes a shortcut, though we must make sure of ambiguities being fulfilled. I also suspect to Markov's inequality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov%27s_inequality) to make the proof easier. Oh..... and I don't mind to answer questions if there were anymore anytime.......
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:11
$begingroup$
Thanks again for helping me (I am a newb). I find your reasoning understandable and logically satisfying. What about this... define $g(x) = xf(x)$ and $G$ to be the integral of $g$ and then we have $$L = frac{d}{dc} left[ G(infty) - G(c) right]= frac{d}{dc} (-G(c)) = -cf(c) $$ I know this is not rigorous like your answer but does this thought process technically work because of the FTC? Or is this still rule breaking because of divergence and ambiguousness that you mentioned? I think this does not work but want to confirm.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:17
1
$begingroup$
I think that the function $G(x)$ may not necessarily converge to a real number as $x to infty$ (or if this is not true i.e. $G(x)$ finally converges, it should be proved though honestly it is not clear to me whether this is the case or not :) ) . If not, then $G(infty)$ is either $infty$ or undefined because of bad oscillations of $xf(x)$....
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Thanks your reasoning helps me understand why that approach is tainted. Thanks again, you are doing God's work.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:26
|
show 1 more 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%2f3072484%2fneed-help-with-calculus-show-that-fracddc-left-int-c-infty-x-fx%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
$begingroup$
You are right to feel breaking many rules!! Note that both $xF(x) biggvert_c^infty $ and $ int_c^infty F(x) dx$ diverge for bounded $c$ and the result becomes ambiguous and inarguable. To fix this, consider $F(x)-1$ instead of $F(x)$.
It's easy to show that using FTC without bothering or caring about breaking laws. According to the definition of derivative we have:$$Ltriangleqfrac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right]{=lim_{hto 0}{int_{c+h}^infty x f(x) dx-int_{c}^infty x f(x) dxover h}\=lim_{hto 0}{-int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxover h}}$$also note that$$-(c+h)int_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dxle -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle -cint_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dx$$or by using the definition of CDF$$-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)le -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)$$from which we obtain$$lim_{hto 0}{-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}le Lle lim_{hto 0}{-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}$$since $f(c)=lim_{hto 0}{F(c+h)-F(c)over h}$ we obtain $$-cf(c)le Lle -cf(c)$$therefore $$L=-cf(c)$$ and the proof is complete.
answered Jan 13 at 20:52
Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz
15.3k3939
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate the formal proof and will spend time to digest it. Is there also a shortcut way to solve the problem... for example by inspection? I got that impression from the solution guide.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:04
1
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Well...May be after finding the limits, their value can be determined using L^Hopital's rule if we have already agreed to accept that :) That makes a shortcut, though we must make sure of ambiguities being fulfilled. I also suspect to Markov's inequality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov%27s_inequality) to make the proof easier. Oh..... and I don't mind to answer questions if there were anymore anytime.......
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:11
$begingroup$
Thanks again for helping me (I am a newb). I find your reasoning understandable and logically satisfying. What about this... define $g(x) = xf(x)$ and $G$ to be the integral of $g$ and then we have $$L = frac{d}{dc} left[ G(infty) - G(c) right]= frac{d}{dc} (-G(c)) = -cf(c) $$ I know this is not rigorous like your answer but does this thought process technically work because of the FTC? Or is this still rule breaking because of divergence and ambiguousness that you mentioned? I think this does not work but want to confirm.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:17
1
$begingroup$
I think that the function $G(x)$ may not necessarily converge to a real number as $x to infty$ (or if this is not true i.e. $G(x)$ finally converges, it should be proved though honestly it is not clear to me whether this is the case or not :) ) . If not, then $G(infty)$ is either $infty$ or undefined because of bad oscillations of $xf(x)$....
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Thanks your reasoning helps me understand why that approach is tainted. Thanks again, you are doing God's work.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:26
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
You are right to feel breaking many rules!! Note that both $xF(x) biggvert_c^infty $ and $ int_c^infty F(x) dx$ diverge for bounded $c$ and the result becomes ambiguous and inarguable. To fix this, consider $F(x)-1$ instead of $F(x)$.
It's easy to show that using FTC without bothering or caring about breaking laws. According to the definition of derivative we have:$$Ltriangleqfrac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right]{=lim_{hto 0}{int_{c+h}^infty x f(x) dx-int_{c}^infty x f(x) dxover h}\=lim_{hto 0}{-int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxover h}}$$also note that$$-(c+h)int_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dxle -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle -cint_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dx$$or by using the definition of CDF$$-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)le -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)$$from which we obtain$$lim_{hto 0}{-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}le Lle lim_{hto 0}{-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}$$since $f(c)=lim_{hto 0}{F(c+h)-F(c)over h}$ we obtain $$-cf(c)le Lle -cf(c)$$therefore $$L=-cf(c)$$ and the proof is complete.
answered Jan 13 at 20:52
Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz
15.3k3939
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate the formal proof and will spend time to digest it. Is there also a shortcut way to solve the problem... for example by inspection? I got that impression from the solution guide.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:04
1
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Well...May be after finding the limits, their value can be determined using L^Hopital's rule if we have already agreed to accept that :) That makes a shortcut, though we must make sure of ambiguities being fulfilled. I also suspect to Markov's inequality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov%27s_inequality) to make the proof easier. Oh..... and I don't mind to answer questions if there were anymore anytime.......
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:11
$begingroup$
Thanks again for helping me (I am a newb). I find your reasoning understandable and logically satisfying. What about this... define $g(x) = xf(x)$ and $G$ to be the integral of $g$ and then we have $$L = frac{d}{dc} left[ G(infty) - G(c) right]= frac{d}{dc} (-G(c)) = -cf(c) $$ I know this is not rigorous like your answer but does this thought process technically work because of the FTC? Or is this still rule breaking because of divergence and ambiguousness that you mentioned? I think this does not work but want to confirm.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:17
1
$begingroup$
I think that the function $G(x)$ may not necessarily converge to a real number as $x to infty$ (or if this is not true i.e. $G(x)$ finally converges, it should be proved though honestly it is not clear to me whether this is the case or not :) ) . If not, then $G(infty)$ is either $infty$ or undefined because of bad oscillations of $xf(x)$....
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Thanks your reasoning helps me understand why that approach is tainted. Thanks again, you are doing God's work.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:26
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
You are right to feel breaking many rules!! Note that both $xF(x) biggvert_c^infty $ and $ int_c^infty F(x) dx$ diverge for bounded $c$ and the result becomes ambiguous and inarguable. To fix this, consider $F(x)-1$ instead of $F(x)$.
It's easy to show that using FTC without bothering or caring about breaking laws. According to the definition of derivative we have:$$Ltriangleqfrac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right]{=lim_{hto 0}{int_{c+h}^infty x f(x) dx-int_{c}^infty x f(x) dxover h}\=lim_{hto 0}{-int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxover h}}$$also note that$$-(c+h)int_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dxle -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle -cint_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dx$$or by using the definition of CDF$$-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)le -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)$$from which we obtain$$lim_{hto 0}{-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}le Lle lim_{hto 0}{-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}$$since $f(c)=lim_{hto 0}{F(c+h)-F(c)over h}$ we obtain $$-cf(c)le Lle -cf(c)$$therefore $$L=-cf(c)$$ and the proof is complete.
answered Jan 13 at 20:52
Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz
15.3k3939
$endgroup$
You are right to feel breaking many rules!! Note that both $xF(x) biggvert_c^infty $ and $ int_c^infty F(x) dx$ diverge for bounded $c$ and the result becomes ambiguous and inarguable. To fix this, consider $F(x)-1$ instead of $F(x)$.
It's easy to show that using FTC without bothering or caring about breaking laws. According to the definition of derivative we have:$$Ltriangleqfrac{d}{dc} left[ int_{c}^infty x f(x) dx right]{=lim_{hto 0}{int_{c+h}^infty x f(x) dx-int_{c}^infty x f(x) dxover h}\=lim_{hto 0}{-int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxover h}}$$also note that$$-(c+h)int_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dxle -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle -cint_{c}^{c+h} f(x) dx$$or by using the definition of CDF$$-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)le -int_{c}^{c+h} x f(x) dxle-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)$$from which we obtain$$lim_{hto 0}{-(c+h)Big(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}le Lle lim_{hto 0}{-cBig(F(c+h)-F(c)Big)over h}$$since $f(c)=lim_{hto 0}{F(c+h)-F(c)over h}$ we obtain $$-cf(c)le Lle -cf(c)$$therefore $$L=-cf(c)$$ and the proof is complete.
answered Jan 13 at 20:52
Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz
15.3k3939
answered Jan 13 at 20:52
Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz
15.3k3939
answered Jan 13 at 20:52
Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz
15.3k3939
answered Jan 13 at 20:52
Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz
15.3k3939
15.3k3939
$begingroup$
Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate the formal proof and will spend time to digest it. Is there also a shortcut way to solve the problem... for example by inspection? I got that impression from the solution guide.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:04
1
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Well...May be after finding the limits, their value can be determined using L^Hopital's rule if we have already agreed to accept that :) That makes a shortcut, though we must make sure of ambiguities being fulfilled. I also suspect to Markov's inequality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov%27s_inequality) to make the proof easier. Oh..... and I don't mind to answer questions if there were anymore anytime.......
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:11
$begingroup$
Thanks again for helping me (I am a newb). I find your reasoning understandable and logically satisfying. What about this... define $g(x) = xf(x)$ and $G$ to be the integral of $g$ and then we have $$L = frac{d}{dc} left[ G(infty) - G(c) right]= frac{d}{dc} (-G(c)) = -cf(c) $$ I know this is not rigorous like your answer but does this thought process technically work because of the FTC? Or is this still rule breaking because of divergence and ambiguousness that you mentioned? I think this does not work but want to confirm.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:17
1
$begingroup$
I think that the function $G(x)$ may not necessarily converge to a real number as $x to infty$ (or if this is not true i.e. $G(x)$ finally converges, it should be proved though honestly it is not clear to me whether this is the case or not :) ) . If not, then $G(infty)$ is either $infty$ or undefined because of bad oscillations of $xf(x)$....
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Thanks your reasoning helps me understand why that approach is tainted. Thanks again, you are doing God's work.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:26
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate the formal proof and will spend time to digest it. Is there also a shortcut way to solve the problem... for example by inspection? I got that impression from the solution guide.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:04
1
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Well...May be after finding the limits, their value can be determined using L^Hopital's rule if we have already agreed to accept that :) That makes a shortcut, though we must make sure of ambiguities being fulfilled. I also suspect to Markov's inequality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov%27s_inequality) to make the proof easier. Oh..... and I don't mind to answer questions if there were anymore anytime.......
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:11
$begingroup$
Thanks again for helping me (I am a newb). I find your reasoning understandable and logically satisfying. What about this... define $g(x) = xf(x)$ and $G$ to be the integral of $g$ and then we have $$L = frac{d}{dc} left[ G(infty) - G(c) right]= frac{d}{dc} (-G(c)) = -cf(c) $$ I know this is not rigorous like your answer but does this thought process technically work because of the FTC? Or is this still rule breaking because of divergence and ambiguousness that you mentioned? I think this does not work but want to confirm.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:17
1
$begingroup$
I think that the function $G(x)$ may not necessarily converge to a real number as $x to infty$ (or if this is not true i.e. $G(x)$ finally converges, it should be proved though honestly it is not clear to me whether this is the case or not :) ) . If not, then $G(infty)$ is either $infty$ or undefined because of bad oscillations of $xf(x)$....
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Thanks your reasoning helps me understand why that approach is tainted. Thanks again, you are doing God's work.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:26
$begingroup$
Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate the formal proof and will spend time to digest it. Is there also a shortcut way to solve the problem... for example by inspection? I got that impression from the solution guide.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:04
$begingroup$
Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate the formal proof and will spend time to digest it. Is there also a shortcut way to solve the problem... for example by inspection? I got that impression from the solution guide.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:04
1
1
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Well...May be after finding the limits, their value can be determined using L^Hopital's rule if we have already agreed to accept that :) That makes a shortcut, though we must make sure of ambiguities being fulfilled. I also suspect to Markov's inequality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov%27s_inequality) to make the proof easier. Oh..... and I don't mind to answer questions if there were anymore anytime.......
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:11
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Well...May be after finding the limits, their value can be determined using L^Hopital's rule if we have already agreed to accept that :) That makes a shortcut, though we must make sure of ambiguities being fulfilled. I also suspect to Markov's inequality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov%27s_inequality) to make the proof easier. Oh..... and I don't mind to answer questions if there were anymore anytime.......
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:11
$begingroup$
Thanks again for helping me (I am a newb). I find your reasoning understandable and logically satisfying. What about this... define $g(x) = xf(x)$ and $G$ to be the integral of $g$ and then we have $$L = frac{d}{dc} left[ G(infty) - G(c) right]= frac{d}{dc} (-G(c)) = -cf(c) $$ I know this is not rigorous like your answer but does this thought process technically work because of the FTC? Or is this still rule breaking because of divergence and ambiguousness that you mentioned? I think this does not work but want to confirm.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:17
$begingroup$
Thanks again for helping me (I am a newb). I find your reasoning understandable and logically satisfying. What about this... define $g(x) = xf(x)$ and $G$ to be the integral of $g$ and then we have $$L = frac{d}{dc} left[ G(infty) - G(c) right]= frac{d}{dc} (-G(c)) = -cf(c) $$ I know this is not rigorous like your answer but does this thought process technically work because of the FTC? Or is this still rule breaking because of divergence and ambiguousness that you mentioned? I think this does not work but want to confirm.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:17
1
1
$begingroup$
I think that the function $G(x)$ may not necessarily converge to a real number as $x to infty$ (or if this is not true i.e. $G(x)$ finally converges, it should be proved though honestly it is not clear to me whether this is the case or not :) ) . If not, then $G(infty)$ is either $infty$ or undefined because of bad oscillations of $xf(x)$....
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:22
$begingroup$
I think that the function $G(x)$ may not necessarily converge to a real number as $x to infty$ (or if this is not true i.e. $G(x)$ finally converges, it should be proved though honestly it is not clear to me whether this is the case or not :) ) . If not, then $G(infty)$ is either $infty$ or undefined because of bad oscillations of $xf(x)$....
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Jan 13 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Thanks your reasoning helps me understand why that approach is tainted. Thanks again, you are doing God's work.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:26
$begingroup$
Thanks your reasoning helps me understand why that approach is tainted. Thanks again, you are doing God's work.
$endgroup$
– HJ_beginner
Jan 13 at 21:26
|
show 1 more 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%2f3072484%2fneed-help-with-calculus-show-that-fracddc-left-int-c-infty-x-fx%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
