Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on Am I taking the antiderivative of |x| correctly?

Parent

Am I taking the antiderivative of |x| correctly?

+3
−0

Edit: forgot +C, sorry

So I remember seeing this video by Blackpenredpen on the Youtube homepage around 3 months ago where he was showing failed attempts of him trying to figure out how to get$$\int\sqrt{\sin^2(x)} \,dx=\int\left|\sin(x)\right| \, dx=-\cot(x)\left|\sin(x)\right|+c$$without piecewise integration.

While I do have my own attempts at this that I've done over the course of 2 months (by attempting IBP or using $u$-substitution), I think these attempts have failed because I don't really understand how to even evaluate$$\int|x|\,dx$$So I think that if I can integrate this, I can integrate$$\int\left|\sin(x)\right| \, dx$$ using a similar method. Here is my attempt at doing so:

We have that$$\int|x|\,dx=\int1\cdot|x| \,dx$$Now, we can rewrite this as$$\int\left(\frac d{dx}x\right)|x|\,dx$$and now we can use IBP.

Here's a brief overview of IBP for anyone who doesn't remember it:

IBP, which stands for Integration By Parts, is a method of integration that states that for functions f(x) and g(x),$$\int f(x)\,dg(x)=f(x)g(x)-\int g(x)\,df(x)$$(here $dg(x)$ and $df(x)$ means $\frac d{dx}g(x)$ and $\frac d{dx}f(x)$ respectively. I understand the notation is disliked a lot)
So what I think it is trying to show here in this context is that if we can rewrite our integral as a product of a 2 functions, and we know the antiderivative of one of them, we can use that to find the antiderivative of the other function.

So now we can use IBP on our integral$$I=\int\left(\frac d{dx}x\right) |x| \, dx$$using$$f(x)=|x|$$$$g(x)=x$$to get$$I=\int\left(\frac d{dx}x\right)|x|=x|x|-\int x \cdot \left(\frac{|x|}x\right)\,dx$$$$=x|x|-\int|x|,dx$$$$I=x|x|-\int|x| \, dx\implies I=x|x|-I$$$$\implies 2I=x|x|\implies I=\int|x|,dx=\frac{x|x|}2$$So we have that the antiderivative of $|x|$ is $\frac{x|x|}2+C$.

However, my question is: Am I taking the antiderivative of $|x|$ correctly, or how would I take it?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Where's the constant? (2 comments)
Post
+1
−0

Am I taking the antiderivative of |x| correctly? That depends on how rigorous you want to be. From a technical point of view, no.

How would I take it? The main problem of your argumentation is that you derivate $\left|\cdot\right|$ which isn't differentiable ([S06], pages 142 and 143) . Instead, you can do the following. Let $f:=\left|\cdot\right|$ and $id$ be the identity function: if $x\ge0, F_0(x)=\int _0^xf=\int _0^xid=x^2/2$; if $x<0, F_0(x)=\int _0^xf=\int _0^x-id=-x^2/2$. This function is an antiderivative of the absolute value function by the First Fundamental Theorem of Calculus ([S06], page 268). If you want to condense its formula, you can write $F_0(x)=(x\left|x\right|)/2$, for every $x\in R$. To obtain the indefinite (which seems to be what you want) antiderivative, you can write $F(x)=(x\left|x\right|)/2+c$, where $c\in R$ (which is actually a notation for $F=\{F_c:c\in R\}$ where $F_c(x)=(x\left|x\right|)/2+c$).

[S06] Michael D. Spivak, Calculus, 3rd edition (2006).

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Actually for $x\ne 0$, $\left|x\right|$ is differentiable; it's derivative there agrees with the sign... (1 comment)
Actually for $x\ne 0$, $\left|x\right|$ is differentiable; it's derivative there agrees with the sign...
celtschk‭ wrote 7 months ago

Actually for $x\ne 0$, $\left|x\right|$ is differentiable; it's derivative there agrees with the sign function. So as long as you exclude $0$ from the domain, there is no problem with taking the derivative. Of course that also means that the result also can only be used for $x\ne 0$, but then, it is not hard to verify that the derivative of $x\left|x\right|/2$ at $x=0$ exists and equals $0$, which also equals the value of $|x|$ at $x=0$, which fills that hole.