I am trying to make sense of 'linearity' of indefinite integrals.
Let us restrict to the 1-dimensional case. My point is that ∫0dx=C∈R, so I cannot really say that ∫ is a linear operator. Indeed, linearity of f:V→W (V,W vector spaces) implies f(0)=0.
In order to define ∫:V→W in a good way, I should introduce an equivalence relation ∼ on W saying that two elements are in the same equivalence class if they coincide up to a constant. So ∫ becomes linear as operator ∫:V→W/∼. Assume a primitive of f is F. Then ∫f(x)dx=[F(x)]∈W/∼ or, as usual, F(x)+C,C∈R. So I would say that the result of an indefinite integral is actually a coset in some quotient vector space. This even solves the problem that ∫:V→W is not a well defined function.
My question is: is this a good way to think, or is there a better one? I have never seen such a thing, neither in a course of Analysis, nor in the books I have read. I am wondering why. It seems a very natural thing to do when introducing indefinite integrals.
Answer
Of course this is a good way to think. But we need some extra notation. Given an interval J⊂R call two functions F:J→R, G:J→R equivalent if F−G is constant on J. It is then easy to see that the equivalence classes ⟨F⟩ form a real vector space in the obvious way. Let V be the subspace generated by the C1-functions on J. Then D:V→C0(J),⟨F⟩↦F′ is a linear isomorphism with inverse the undetermined integral: ∫:f↦∫f(t)dt . Thereby each "differentiation rule" generates an "integration rule" as follows: F′=f⟹∫f(t)dt=⟨F(t)⟩ . And on and on.
No comments:
Post a Comment