If we have
F(α)=b∫af(α,x)dx
Then
F(α+Δα)−F(α)Δα=ΔFΔα=b∫af(α+Δα,x)−f(α,x)Δαdx
and
lim
However, this doesn't always mean
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\Delta \alpha \to 0} \frac{{\Delta F}}{{\Delta \alpha }} = \frac{{dF}}{{d\alpha }} = \int\limits_a^b {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\Delta \alpha \to 0} \frac{{f\left( {\alpha + \Delta \alpha ,x} \right) - f\left( {\alpha ,x} \right)}}{{\Delta \alpha }}dx}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\Delta \alpha \to 0} \frac{{\Delta F}}{{\Delta \alpha }} = \frac{{dF}}{{d\alpha }} = \int\limits_a^b {\frac{{\partial f\left( {\alpha ,x} \right)}}{{\partial \alpha }}dx}
I know that in other cases, for example in the integration of a series of functions or in sequences of functions, if s(x)_n \to s(x) or f_n(x) \to f(x) uniformly then we can integrate term by term (in the series) or change the order of integration and of taking the limit (in the sequence), i.e:
If
{s_n}\left( x \right) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^n {{f_k}\left( x \right)}
then
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \int\limits_a^b {{s_n}\left( x \right)dx} = \int\limits_a^b {s\left( x \right)dx}
and for the other case:
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \int\limits_a^b {{f_n}\left( x \right)dx} = \int\limits_a^b {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } {f_n}\left( x \right)dx}
However Leibniz's rule is used in cases such as:
\int\limits_0^1 {\frac{{{x^\alpha } - 1}}{{\log x}}dx}
Which isn't even continuous in [0,1]. How can we then justify this procedure?
ADD:
One particular example is
f(t) = \int\limits_0^\infty {\frac{{\sin \left( {xt} \right)}}{x}} dx =\frac{\pi}{2}
Which wrongly yields:
f'\left( t \right) = \int\limits_0^\infty {\cos \left( {xt} \right)dx} = 0
Answer
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiation_under_the_integral_sign
For your integral
\int_0^1 {\frac{{{x^\alpha } - 1}}{{\log x}}dx},
I guess you need \alpha>1 (at least to apply the theorem the way it appears in the Wikipedia article). Be careful that x in the article is your \alpha.
A more general result is Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem, where you can replace the continuity assumption with boundedness (since (x,\alpha) will be staying within a rectangle).
No comments:
Post a Comment