The value of the infinitesimal in integral doesn't matter?












2














I am studying calculus by the infinitesimal approach using "Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach" textbook. in page 187, the author proved that the value of the infinitesimal we integrate with respect to doesn't matter as long as it is an infinitesimal. But it looks like he substituted $x$ with $u$, and $dx$ by $du$, it is like a change of variable where $x = u$, so $dx$ and $du$ might have different values. Generally, we have to substitute $du$ with $g'(x)dx$ . I am confused between the two notions, especially that first wasn't discussed in college.






calculus integration nonstandard-analysis change-of-variable infinitesimals







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    quora.com/…
    – D.R.
    Oct 27 '18 at 21:47






  • 1




    I suggest you get a different book for it appears the current book is misleading you. Infinitesmals are only an intuitive way of understanding integration.
    – William Elliot
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:23












  • Sorry, I don't get how this is related to the question. @D.R.
    – Samuel Shokry
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:38










  • The limits weren't intuitive to me, the infinitesimals work better for me. @WilliamElliot
    – Samuel Shokry
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:39






  • 3




    You should have a look at this question and the answers and comments therein: math.stackexchange.com/q/2929795/72031 The fact you ask is dependent on uniform continuity. But this aspect is not explicitly mentioned by Keisler.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Oct 28 '18 at 9:56


















2














I am studying calculus by the infinitesimal approach using "Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach" textbook. in page 187, the author proved that the value of the infinitesimal we integrate with respect to doesn't matter as long as it is an infinitesimal. But it looks like he substituted $x$ with $u$, and $dx$ by $du$, it is like a change of variable where $x = u$, so $dx$ and $du$ might have different values. Generally, we have to substitute $du$ with $g'(x)dx$ . I am confused between the two notions, especially that first wasn't discussed in college.






calculus integration nonstandard-analysis change-of-variable infinitesimals







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    quora.com/…
    – D.R.
    Oct 27 '18 at 21:47






  • 1




    I suggest you get a different book for it appears the current book is misleading you. Infinitesmals are only an intuitive way of understanding integration.
    – William Elliot
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:23












  • Sorry, I don't get how this is related to the question. @D.R.
    – Samuel Shokry
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:38










  • The limits weren't intuitive to me, the infinitesimals work better for me. @WilliamElliot
    – Samuel Shokry
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:39






  • 3




    You should have a look at this question and the answers and comments therein: math.stackexchange.com/q/2929795/72031 The fact you ask is dependent on uniform continuity. But this aspect is not explicitly mentioned by Keisler.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Oct 28 '18 at 9:56
















2












2








2







I am studying calculus by the infinitesimal approach using "Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach" textbook. in page 187, the author proved that the value of the infinitesimal we integrate with respect to doesn't matter as long as it is an infinitesimal. But it looks like he substituted $x$ with $u$, and $dx$ by $du$, it is like a change of variable where $x = u$, so $dx$ and $du$ might have different values. Generally, we have to substitute $du$ with $g'(x)dx$ . I am confused between the two notions, especially that first wasn't discussed in college.






calculus integration nonstandard-analysis change-of-variable infinitesimals







share|cite|improve this question















I am studying calculus by the infinitesimal approach using "Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach" textbook. in page 187, the author proved that the value of the infinitesimal we integrate with respect to doesn't matter as long as it is an infinitesimal. But it looks like he substituted $x$ with $u$, and $dx$ by $du$, it is like a change of variable where $x = u$, so $dx$ and $du$ might have different values. Generally, we have to substitute $du$ with $g'(x)dx$ . I am confused between the two notions, especially that first wasn't discussed in college.






calculus integration nonstandard-analysis change-of-variable infinitesimals




calculus integration nonstandard-analysis change-of-variable infinitesimals






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 28 '18 at 17:31









Emanuele Bottazzi

33219




33219










asked Oct 27 '18 at 21:43









Samuel ShokrySamuel Shokry

354




354








  • 1




    quora.com/…
    – D.R.
    Oct 27 '18 at 21:47






  • 1




    I suggest you get a different book for it appears the current book is misleading you. Infinitesmals are only an intuitive way of understanding integration.
    – William Elliot
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:23












  • Sorry, I don't get how this is related to the question. @D.R.
    – Samuel Shokry
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:38










  • The limits weren't intuitive to me, the infinitesimals work better for me. @WilliamElliot
    – Samuel Shokry
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:39






  • 3




    You should have a look at this question and the answers and comments therein: math.stackexchange.com/q/2929795/72031 The fact you ask is dependent on uniform continuity. But this aspect is not explicitly mentioned by Keisler.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Oct 28 '18 at 9:56
















  • 1




    quora.com/…
    – D.R.
    Oct 27 '18 at 21:47






  • 1




    I suggest you get a different book for it appears the current book is misleading you. Infinitesmals are only an intuitive way of understanding integration.
    – William Elliot
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:23












  • Sorry, I don't get how this is related to the question. @D.R.
    – Samuel Shokry
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:38










  • The limits weren't intuitive to me, the infinitesimals work better for me. @WilliamElliot
    – Samuel Shokry
    Oct 27 '18 at 22:39






  • 3




    You should have a look at this question and the answers and comments therein: math.stackexchange.com/q/2929795/72031 The fact you ask is dependent on uniform continuity. But this aspect is not explicitly mentioned by Keisler.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Oct 28 '18 at 9:56










1




1




quora.com/…
– D.R.
Oct 27 '18 at 21:47




quora.com/…
– D.R.
Oct 27 '18 at 21:47




1




1




I suggest you get a different book for it appears the current book is misleading you. Infinitesmals are only an intuitive way of understanding integration.
– William Elliot
Oct 27 '18 at 22:23






I suggest you get a different book for it appears the current book is misleading you. Infinitesmals are only an intuitive way of understanding integration.
– William Elliot
Oct 27 '18 at 22:23














Sorry, I don't get how this is related to the question. @D.R.
– Samuel Shokry
Oct 27 '18 at 22:38




Sorry, I don't get how this is related to the question. @D.R.
– Samuel Shokry
Oct 27 '18 at 22:38












The limits weren't intuitive to me, the infinitesimals work better for me. @WilliamElliot
– Samuel Shokry
Oct 27 '18 at 22:39




The limits weren't intuitive to me, the infinitesimals work better for me. @WilliamElliot
– Samuel Shokry
Oct 27 '18 at 22:39




3




3




You should have a look at this question and the answers and comments therein: math.stackexchange.com/q/2929795/72031 The fact you ask is dependent on uniform continuity. But this aspect is not explicitly mentioned by Keisler.
– Paramanand Singh
Oct 28 '18 at 9:56






You should have a look at this question and the answers and comments therein: math.stackexchange.com/q/2929795/72031 The fact you ask is dependent on uniform continuity. But this aspect is not explicitly mentioned by Keisler.
– Paramanand Singh
Oct 28 '18 at 9:56












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














If you define the integral of continuous functions as
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)
$$
where





  • $I$ is some subdivision of the interval $[a,b]$ with an inf-large number of inf-small sub-intervals,


  • $dx=x^+-xapprox 0$ for all $xin I$, with $x^+$ the successor of $x$ in $I$,


then indeed the value of the integral is independent of the subdivision.



You can parametrize $I$ over some other subdivision $J$ using a monotonously increasing differentiable function $g$ and define $x=g(u)$ for $uin J$ so that $$dx=x^+-x=g(u^+)-g(u)=g'(u)du+O(du^2).$$ As $max_{uin J}|du|approx 0$ the last term remains inf-small in the sum so that indeed
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)={rm std}left(sum_{uin J}f(g(u))g'(u)duright)
$$
in this notation.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I guess this would be a stupid question, but why do we have to substite $dx$ by $g'(u)du$, Shouldn't the answer be independent of the subdivision as you have mentioned? of course that would yield a different answer, but I can't figure out why, Is it because of the parametrizing step? could you explain a little bit more?.
    – Samuel Shokry
    Nov 6 '18 at 23:57










  • You get a different subdivision in the above formulas by setting $g(u)=u$. However, that equality already used the more fundamental fact that the integral value is independent of the subdivision. You want to have substitution available as tool in case that the product $f(g(u))g'(u)$ dramatically simplifies.
    – LutzL
    Nov 7 '18 at 0:07











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2973974%2fthe-value-of-the-infinitesimal-in-integral-doesnt-matter%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









2














If you define the integral of continuous functions as
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)
$$
where





  • $I$ is some subdivision of the interval $[a,b]$ with an inf-large number of inf-small sub-intervals,


  • $dx=x^+-xapprox 0$ for all $xin I$, with $x^+$ the successor of $x$ in $I$,


then indeed the value of the integral is independent of the subdivision.



You can parametrize $I$ over some other subdivision $J$ using a monotonously increasing differentiable function $g$ and define $x=g(u)$ for $uin J$ so that $$dx=x^+-x=g(u^+)-g(u)=g'(u)du+O(du^2).$$ As $max_{uin J}|du|approx 0$ the last term remains inf-small in the sum so that indeed
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)={rm std}left(sum_{uin J}f(g(u))g'(u)duright)
$$
in this notation.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I guess this would be a stupid question, but why do we have to substite $dx$ by $g'(u)du$, Shouldn't the answer be independent of the subdivision as you have mentioned? of course that would yield a different answer, but I can't figure out why, Is it because of the parametrizing step? could you explain a little bit more?.
    – Samuel Shokry
    Nov 6 '18 at 23:57










  • You get a different subdivision in the above formulas by setting $g(u)=u$. However, that equality already used the more fundamental fact that the integral value is independent of the subdivision. You want to have substitution available as tool in case that the product $f(g(u))g'(u)$ dramatically simplifies.
    – LutzL
    Nov 7 '18 at 0:07
















2














If you define the integral of continuous functions as
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)
$$
where





  • $I$ is some subdivision of the interval $[a,b]$ with an inf-large number of inf-small sub-intervals,


  • $dx=x^+-xapprox 0$ for all $xin I$, with $x^+$ the successor of $x$ in $I$,


then indeed the value of the integral is independent of the subdivision.



You can parametrize $I$ over some other subdivision $J$ using a monotonously increasing differentiable function $g$ and define $x=g(u)$ for $uin J$ so that $$dx=x^+-x=g(u^+)-g(u)=g'(u)du+O(du^2).$$ As $max_{uin J}|du|approx 0$ the last term remains inf-small in the sum so that indeed
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)={rm std}left(sum_{uin J}f(g(u))g'(u)duright)
$$
in this notation.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I guess this would be a stupid question, but why do we have to substite $dx$ by $g'(u)du$, Shouldn't the answer be independent of the subdivision as you have mentioned? of course that would yield a different answer, but I can't figure out why, Is it because of the parametrizing step? could you explain a little bit more?.
    – Samuel Shokry
    Nov 6 '18 at 23:57










  • You get a different subdivision in the above formulas by setting $g(u)=u$. However, that equality already used the more fundamental fact that the integral value is independent of the subdivision. You want to have substitution available as tool in case that the product $f(g(u))g'(u)$ dramatically simplifies.
    – LutzL
    Nov 7 '18 at 0:07














2












2








2






If you define the integral of continuous functions as
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)
$$
where





  • $I$ is some subdivision of the interval $[a,b]$ with an inf-large number of inf-small sub-intervals,


  • $dx=x^+-xapprox 0$ for all $xin I$, with $x^+$ the successor of $x$ in $I$,


then indeed the value of the integral is independent of the subdivision.



You can parametrize $I$ over some other subdivision $J$ using a monotonously increasing differentiable function $g$ and define $x=g(u)$ for $uin J$ so that $$dx=x^+-x=g(u^+)-g(u)=g'(u)du+O(du^2).$$ As $max_{uin J}|du|approx 0$ the last term remains inf-small in the sum so that indeed
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)={rm std}left(sum_{uin J}f(g(u))g'(u)duright)
$$
in this notation.






share|cite|improve this answer












If you define the integral of continuous functions as
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)
$$
where





  • $I$ is some subdivision of the interval $[a,b]$ with an inf-large number of inf-small sub-intervals,


  • $dx=x^+-xapprox 0$ for all $xin I$, with $x^+$ the successor of $x$ in $I$,


then indeed the value of the integral is independent of the subdivision.



You can parametrize $I$ over some other subdivision $J$ using a monotonously increasing differentiable function $g$ and define $x=g(u)$ for $uin J$ so that $$dx=x^+-x=g(u^+)-g(u)=g'(u)du+O(du^2).$$ As $max_{uin J}|du|approx 0$ the last term remains inf-small in the sum so that indeed
$$
{rm std}left(sum_{xin I}f(x)dxright)={rm std}left(sum_{uin J}f(g(u))g'(u)duright)
$$
in this notation.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 4 '18 at 17:46









LutzLLutzL

56.5k42054




56.5k42054












  • I guess this would be a stupid question, but why do we have to substite $dx$ by $g'(u)du$, Shouldn't the answer be independent of the subdivision as you have mentioned? of course that would yield a different answer, but I can't figure out why, Is it because of the parametrizing step? could you explain a little bit more?.
    – Samuel Shokry
    Nov 6 '18 at 23:57










  • You get a different subdivision in the above formulas by setting $g(u)=u$. However, that equality already used the more fundamental fact that the integral value is independent of the subdivision. You want to have substitution available as tool in case that the product $f(g(u))g'(u)$ dramatically simplifies.
    – LutzL
    Nov 7 '18 at 0:07


















  • I guess this would be a stupid question, but why do we have to substite $dx$ by $g'(u)du$, Shouldn't the answer be independent of the subdivision as you have mentioned? of course that would yield a different answer, but I can't figure out why, Is it because of the parametrizing step? could you explain a little bit more?.
    – Samuel Shokry
    Nov 6 '18 at 23:57










  • You get a different subdivision in the above formulas by setting $g(u)=u$. However, that equality already used the more fundamental fact that the integral value is independent of the subdivision. You want to have substitution available as tool in case that the product $f(g(u))g'(u)$ dramatically simplifies.
    – LutzL
    Nov 7 '18 at 0:07
















I guess this would be a stupid question, but why do we have to substite $dx$ by $g'(u)du$, Shouldn't the answer be independent of the subdivision as you have mentioned? of course that would yield a different answer, but I can't figure out why, Is it because of the parametrizing step? could you explain a little bit more?.
– Samuel Shokry
Nov 6 '18 at 23:57




I guess this would be a stupid question, but why do we have to substite $dx$ by $g'(u)du$, Shouldn't the answer be independent of the subdivision as you have mentioned? of course that would yield a different answer, but I can't figure out why, Is it because of the parametrizing step? could you explain a little bit more?.
– Samuel Shokry
Nov 6 '18 at 23:57












You get a different subdivision in the above formulas by setting $g(u)=u$. However, that equality already used the more fundamental fact that the integral value is independent of the subdivision. You want to have substitution available as tool in case that the product $f(g(u))g'(u)$ dramatically simplifies.
– LutzL
Nov 7 '18 at 0:07




You get a different subdivision in the above formulas by setting $g(u)=u$. However, that equality already used the more fundamental fact that the integral value is independent of the subdivision. You want to have substitution available as tool in case that the product $f(g(u))g'(u)$ dramatically simplifies.
– LutzL
Nov 7 '18 at 0:07


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2973974%2fthe-value-of-the-infinitesimal-in-integral-doesnt-matter%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







-

Popular posts from this blog

Questions related to Moebius Transform of Characteristic Function of the Primes

Image
2 $begingroup$ Consider the function defined in (1) below related to the fundamental prime counting function $pi(x)$ . Note that A143519(n) is not multiplicative. (1) $quad f(x)=sumlimits_{n=1}^{x}A143519(n)$ https://oeis.org/A143519 The following plot illustrates $f(x)$ defined in formula (1) above. Figure (1) : Illustration of $f(x)$ defined in formula (1) The integer zeros of $f(x)$ for $xle 10,000$ are listed in (2) below. (2) $quad$ {1,6,9,12,19,30,79,80,81,116,193,201,287,288,291,668,673,679,680,685,686,1109} The zero crossings of $f(x)$ for $xle 10,000$ where $f(x)$ doesn't settle at zero are listed in (3) below. (3) $quad$ {14,21,33,114,115,118,195,286,290,295,442,445,665,667,670,671,678,682} Question (1) : Does $f(x)$ have a finite number of integer zeros, and if so ...
Read more

List of scandals in India

Image
List of scandals in India From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries. This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article has an unclear citation style . The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation and footnoting. ( January 2014 ) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This list is in reverse order. As a consequence it appears to be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective and add more content related to non-recent events. ( May 2013 ) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) ...
Read more

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

Image
0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB] ...
Read more