Welcome to Calculus.

I'm Professor Ghrist and we're about to

begin.
Lecture 26, of a fundamental theorem of
integral calculus.
Based on the definitions alone, definite
integrals and indefinite integrals seem
to have nothing in common, except the
name, and that long squiggly sign that we
use to denote them.
In fact, they are closely related.
They are two aspects of the same
character.
We will see that in today's lesson, where
we introduce the fundamental theorem of
integral calculus.
The goal of this lesson is to understand
and use the Fundamental Theorem of
Integral Calculus.
And while you've probably seen it before,
a theorem of this importance is worth
your careful attention.
The fundamental theorem gives an
equivalent between definite and
indefinite integrals.
Specifically for f, a continuous function
on the interval from a to b.
The definite integral of f of (x), dx as
x goes from a to b.
Is equal to the indefinite integral of f
evaluated from a to b.
Now again, these are ostensibly different
objects.
On the left and the right hand side, the
definite integral is a number.
The indefinite integral is a class of
antiderivatives.
The equivalence comes from the fact that
we evaluate those anti-derivatives of a
and b.
Another way to write this is more
illustrative.
The definite integral is x goes from a to
b of dF, where capital F is some function
is that anti-derivative f evaluated from
x equals a to b.
Now this is a more compact way to write
the result.
In practice, you're going to want to
think of it expanded out a little bit.
Though the chain rule dF is really
dFdxdx, and that definite integral from a
to b, is simply the anti-derivative f
evaluated at b minus f evaluated at a.
Now, this is not a new idea to you.
You've certainly used this result before.
We've certainly observed it if nothing
else.
When we did, the definite integral of x d

x, as x goes from a to b.
By computing the Riemann sum we found
that the answer was 1 half, quantity, b
squared, minus a squared.
If we apply the fundamental theorem of
integral Calculus, what it says is that
we can compute the anti-derivative of x.
Which is, of course, 1 half x squared.
And then evaluate that.
Add a to b.
First, we plug in b and obtain, 1 half b
squared.
Then we subtract what we get, when we
plug in a.
Namely, 1 half a squared.
And that of course is the same answer
that we obtained earlier through more
difficult means.
This is the value of the fundamental
theorem.
It makes computations simple.
Let's look at a different example.
Compute, the definite integral as x goes
from 1 to t, of 1 over x, dx.
Now, we can think of this geometrically
in terms of limits of Riemann sums,
getting something that approximates the
area under the curve 1 over x.
By the fundamental theorem, we can
anti-differentiate 1 over x to get, of
course, log of x.
And evaluate that from 1 to t.
That gives us log of t, minus log of 1.
Of course the natural log of 1 is 0.
And so we obtain log of T as the answer,
which gives us a new interpretation of
the natural log rhythm that you may have
already known.
Mainly that it is the area under the
curve 1 over x, as x goes from 1 to t.
Now this is all well and good, and you
will find the fundamental theorem to be
extremely useful in computations, but you
must know what this theorem really means,
and it has several interpretations.
Let's look at the compact form of the
fundamental theorem, and rearrange the
terms a bit, so that on the left we have
a function, f, evaluated from a to b,
that is equal to, on the right, the
definite integral from a to b, of dF.
Otherwise said, the net change in some
quantity, F, is equal to the integral of
its rate of change.
Now you might say, that's obvious, but
it's not.
And there are many different contexts in
which this applies in a non-trivial and
non-obvious way.
Some are simple in saying that the

position is equal to the integral of the

velocity.
Or the net change in height, is equal to
the integral of the growth rate.
Some are not so obvious, particularly in
economics, where one talks of marginal
quantities as the derivative.
So the net change in supply is equal to
the integral of the marginal supply et
cetera.
Lets do an example of marginal
quantities.
Lets assume a publisher is printing
12,000 books per month with an expected
revenue of $60 per book, but it costs
money to publish these books, and the
marginal cost is a function of x, the
number of books published per month.
This function is given by 10 plus x over
2000.
Then, what change in profit would result
from a 25% increase in production?
Let's set this up as an integral problem.
First, we're going to need some
variables.
The cost element, that is, the rate of
change of cost to the publisher is given
by this marginal cost function, MC of (x)
times dx.
The rate of change of the number of
books.
This is, of course, 10 plus x over 2000
times dx.
What about revenue?
Well the revenue element, that is the
rate of change of revenue, is given in
terms of a marginal revenue function
times dx.
What is this marginal revenue function?
Well if we look at the problem, we see
that the revenue is at $60 dollars per
book.
Since it's a per book quantity it is
marginal, so the revenue element is 60dx.
Now, the problem is asking, for profit,
in particular, change in profit.
And so we would look at the profit
element, dP.
P is for profit.
This is the revenue minus the cost, or at
the marginal level, the marginal revenue
minus the marginal cost.
This is 50 minus x over 2,000 dx.
That is our profit element.
And so, to obtain a net change in profit,
what do we do?
We integrate the profit element.
50 minus x over 2,000 dx.
With what limits?
Well, we began at x equals 12,000 books

per month.
And, we need to get an upper limit, we
were asked to consider a 25% increase in
production.
That would be going to 15,000 books per
month.
And so we see that the answer is a simple
integral.
We can to that anti-derivative easily.
50 integrates to 50 x.
X over 2,000 integrates to x squared over
4,000.
Subtract and evaluate as x goes from
12000 to 15000.
I'll leave it to you to determine the
numerical answer of almost $130,000.
That is the net increase in profit.
Let's consider another example, one that
illustrates how we have to be careful
with limits when applying integration
techniques.
Let's consider the integral as x goes
from 0 to 1, on x time x minus 1.
Well now, that's too easy.
Let's say x times x minus 1 to the nth
power dx.
Where n is some positive integer, let's
say.
Well one way to solve this, would be by
substitution.
Letting u be x minus 1.
Du is equal to dx.
And so we obtain, simply, the integral.
As x goes from 0 to 1 of quantity u plus
1, that's x, times u to the n du.
Now notice how I wrote in the limits x
equals 0 to 1.
But we're integrating with respect to u.
Be careful with your limits so you know
which variable you're talking about.
Well let's proceed.
The integral of u plus 1, times u to the
n du is expanding the integral of u to
the n plus 1, plus u to the n du.
That's a simple integral, that gives us u
to the n plus 2, over n plus 2, plus u to
the n plus 1, over n plus 1.
And we need to evaluate.
That anti-derivative as x goes from 0 to
1, but that's in terms of x.
So to compute the answer we could
substitute back in x minus 1 for you.
This gives us x, minus 1, to the n plus
2, over n plus 2.
Plus, x minus 1 to the n plus 1 over n
plus 1.
Evaluating as x goes from 0 to 1, gives
minus negative 1 to the n plus 2, over n
plus 2, minus negative 1 to the n plus 1
over n plus 1.

With a little bit of simplification,

factoring out on negative 1 to the n plus
2, and then simplifying that to negative
1 to the n, we get a final answer of
negative 1 to the n, over n plus 1 times
quantity n plus 2.
Now, you can see how you could get into
trouble.
If you weren't careful labeling the x
limits versus the u limits.
Now another way to do this, would be to
change from x limits to u limits.
When x is 0, u, x minus 1, is negative 1.
When x is 1, u is equal to 0.
By changing the limits to u limits
directly, we can obtain the same answer
very simply.
And in some cases, without the
opportunity for confusion.
Now, that's not the only way to solve
this integral.
We could have used the integration by
parts formula.
If, in this case, we let u be x, and dv
be x minus 1 to the n.
Then, setting du equal to dx, and v equal
to x minus 1 to the n plus 1, over n plus
1.
What do we obtain?
Well, we get u times v, that is x times
quantity x minus 1 to the n plus 1 over n
plus 1 minus the integral of v.
Max minus 1 to the n plus 1 over n plus 1
times du, that is dx.
And that's a simple enough integral to
do, however, we must be careful with the
limits.
The integration by parts formula for
definite integrals follows the pattern
you would expect but you have to evaluate
the uv term from a to b.
So let's do so in this case.
Evaluating as x goes from 0 to 1.
What does this give?
Well, when we evaluate the u times v
quantity from 0 to 1, we get at 1, 0.
At 0, 0.
And, that's simple enough.
Fortunately, it goes away.
And we're left with the integral of x
minus 1 to the n plus 1, over n plus 1.
That is of course x minus 1 to the n plus
2, over n plus 2 times that negative 1
over n plus 1 that was hanging around.
Evaluating that from 0 to 1 gives us our
answer very simply.
Negative 1 to the n plus 2 over quantity,
n plus 1, times n plus 2.
Pulling out a negative 1 squared, gives
us the same answer that we saw before.

The fundamental theorem, of the integral

of calculus is fantastic.
With it, your going to be able to compute
definite integrals galore.
With it, we're going to fuel all of the
applications that we'll see in chapter
four.
But in our next lesson, we'll see that
when pushed to the limit, this theorem
can run into problems.