Remix.run Logo
mchinen 6 hours ago

I've studied the proofs before but there's still something mystical and unintuitive for me about the area under an entire curve being related to the derivative at only two points, especially for wobbly non monotonic functions.

I feel similar about the trace of a matrix being equal to the sum of eigenvalues.

Probably this means I should sit with it more until it is obvious, but I also kind of like this feeling.

ironSkillet 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is not determined by the derivative, it's the antiderivative, as someone else mentioned. The derivative is the rate of change of a function. The "area under a curve" of the graph of a function measures how much the function is "accumulating", which is intuitively a sum of rates of change (taken to an infinitesimal limit).

dalvrosa 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Thanks for bringing some intuition!

enriquto 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> there's still something mystical and unintuitive for me about the area under an entire curve being related to the derivative

the discrete version is much clearer to me. Suppose you have a function f(n) defined at integer positions n. Its "derivative" is just the difference of consecutive values

     f'(n) = f(n+1) - f(n)
Then the fundamental theorem is just a telescopic sum:

     f(b) - f(a) = \sum_a^b f'(n)
dalvrosa 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Very. Very nice

nimonian 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you think of it as being an accumulator function it can feel a bit more natural - the _definition_ of this accumulator is that, F(x) is the area from 0 to x

The fact that the derivative of this accumulator function is equal to the original function, this is the fundamental theorem of calculus, and I violently agree with you that this part is shockingly, unexpectedly beautiful

mchinen an hour ago | parent [-]

Thank you for wording it better than I could. On the computational side, the integral as a function that measures how the another function accumulates intuitively lets you measure the area under the curve between two points only requires two variables.

Where it gets interesting is that if I were to naively construct this accumulator in a non-computational, infinitesimal manner, I would probably start using the idea that the infinitesimal accumulation is related to the instantaneous slope and using that somehow with the previous accumulation. But this is going the opposite direction of derivatives that the fundamental theorem uses.

I understand there are a few other types of integrals that slice things different ways that might be more intuitive. I vaguely recall some (non fundamental theorem) proof that made Riemann integrals click for a while.

aquafox 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I tell you I have function f with f(a) = 10 and on it's path from a to b, the graph first increaes by 5 units then by another 10, and then later on drops by 25 units, you can immediately deduce that f(b) = f(a) + (+5 +10 -25) = 0. The fundamental theorem of calculus uses the same concept:

To see why \int_a^b f(x) dx = F(b) - F(a) with F'(x) = f(x),

we replace f with f' (and hence F with f) and get

\int_a^b f'(x) dx = f(b) - f(a).

Re-arranging terms, we get

f(b) = f(a) + \int_a^b f'(x) dx.

The last line just says: The value of function f at point b is is the value at point a plus the sum of all the infinitely many changes the function goes through on its path from a to b.

dist-epoch an hour ago | parent [-]

how does this work for these two different paths which arrive at the same endpoint:

+5 +10 +0 -25 = -15

+5 +12 -2 -25 = -15

They have different graphs if you consider the values above sampling points, this is what parent is asking.

magicalhippo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The antiderivative at x is defined as the area under the curve from 0 to x, which the Riemann sum gives a nice intuition for how you can get from the derivative.

So to get the area under the curve between a and b, you calculate the area under the curve from 0 to b (antiderivative at b) and subtract the area under the curve from 0 to a (antiderivative at a).

At least that's my sleep deprived take.

1980phipsi 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I took calculus in high school and college, and I don't think any of my instructors explained the intuition as well. So sleep-deprived or not, it's a great one!

sambapa 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You meant antiderivative?

bmacho 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have internalised that in mathematics nice things come in bouquets. If there is a thing defined with properties A, B, C, and there is an other thing defined with properties D, E, F, then chances are that those 2 things are the same thing, because there are only so few nice concepts.

There are many types of examples, and many different reasons why I don't find a particular connection or connection type surprising. So I can concentrate on memorising them, and building intuition.

For the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus:

  - int f' = f: the sum of the change is the thing itself. E.g. pour water in the bathtub, if you sum the rate you pour, that's the total water in the bathtub
  - int f' = f(t2) - f(t1) : same but water differences between 2 times.
  - (int f)' = f: the rate of the sum is the function itself. If you go and integrate your function f, the integrate function's change rate at x is f(x) 
  - and so on. 
Also someone mentioned discrete functions, partial sums and difference series are indeed easier. Say, F is your gross money and f is your monthly salary, or F is gross amount of rain and f is daily rain. Summing a series or taking differences between 2 consecutive data points are each other's inverses.

> the area under an entire curve being related to the derivative at only two points

This is a very wrong sentence. The area under f on [a,b] is not related to the derivative of f at a and b. The area under f on [0,x] is a real function F(x) by definition, and there is nothing surprising that the area of f on [a,b] is F(b)-F(a). Simple interval arithmetic. Granted F, the integral function, is related to f: F' = f.

tl;dr : in the "fundamental theorem of calculus" there are 2 main observations:

  - the operators 'sum of' and 'change rate' are each other's inverse and commute: 
  
       (int f)' = int (f') = f
                              
       F' = f  <==>  int f = F
  
  - from interval arithmetics:
  
       S(a,b) = S(0,b) - S(0,a)
dalvrosa 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is some geometric intuition in wikipedia page for this theorem you may like :)