17

I just wanted to ask, if my proof is correct. I haven't seen the equation before, but I think it's quite useful.

Let $f$ be an bijective differentiable function. Then the inverse function $f^{-1}$ exists and the following equation holds:

$$\int\limits_{a}^{b} f(x) dx = b \cdot f(b) - a \cdot f(a) - \int\limits_{f(a)}^{f(b)} f^{-1}(x) dx$$

Proof.

$f$ is an bijective differentiable function and $F$ is an antiderivative of $f$.

First we need to find an antiderivative of $f^{-1}$.

$\int f^{-1}(x) dx$ with substitution $x = f(y)$ yields:

$$\int y \cdot f'(y) dy = y \cdot f(y) - \int f(y) dy = y \cdot f(y) - F(y)$$

resubstitution yields:

$$\int f^{-1}(x) dx = x \cdot f^{-1}(x) - F(f^{-1}(x))$$ hence $\int\limits_{f(a)}^{f(b)} f^{-1}(x) dx = \left[x \cdot f^{-1}(x) - F(f^{-1}(x)) \right ]_{f(a)}^{f(b)}$

$$=b \cdot f(b) - F(b) - (a \cdot f(a) - F(a)) = F(a) - F(b) + b \cdot f(b) - a \cdot f(a)$$ $$= \int\limits_{b}^{a} f(x) dx + b \cdot f(b) - a \cdot f(a) = -\int\limits_{a}^{b} f(x) dx + b \cdot f(b) - a \cdot f(a)$$

All in all:

$$\int\limits_{f(a)}^{f(b)} f^{-1}(x) dx = -\int\limits_{a}^{b} f(x) dx + b \cdot f(b) - a \cdot f(a)$$

which is equal to

$$\int\limits_{a}^{b} f(x) dx = b \cdot f(b) - a \cdot f(a) - \int\limits_{f(a)}^{f(b)} f^{-1}(x) dx$$

q.e.d.

Guy Fsone
  • 23,903
  • No time to answer, but +1 for showing what you've done so far! – Neal Oct 23 '14 at 01:49
  • 2
    This is a good derivation but there is a slightly easier way to show it holds in general. What you can do is consider $y\in(a,b)$ and then inspect what happens to $$\frac{d}{dy}\left(\int_a^yf(x),dx + \int_{f(a)}^{f(y)}f^{-1}(x),dx-yf(y)+af(a)\right).$$ This is a somewhat obscure formula which is known and has shown up on the Math GRE on occasion. This Wiki article is of interest I think, particularly take a look at the area plot. Kudos for thinking this up yourself! – Cameron Williams Oct 23 '14 at 04:55
  • +1 to both because it's a gorgeous result and I'm doing my GRE this saturday. – hjhjhj57 Oct 23 '14 at 05:21
  • I love this formula since it gives quick way to compute integral with function like acrsin, arcos instead of using integration by part – Guy Fsone Oct 18 '17 at 15:59
  • This result still holds even when $f$ is not differentiable, as long as $f$ is assumed to be bijective and continuous. But in this case, we can't exploit the Chain Rule and Product Rule as we had before in Cameron's recommendation. We have to recourse to Riemann or Darboux sums. –  Nov 07 '17 at 22:44

3 Answers3

4

Look at the area represented by the integrals. For simplicity take the case $0 < a < b$ and $0 < f(a) < f(b)$. The first integral represents the area under the curve, above the $x$-axis, between $x=a$ and $x=b$. The second integral represents the area to the left of the curve, to the right of the $y$-axis, between $y=f(a)$ and $y=f(b)$. When combined they give the region which could be described as the rectangle with width $b$ and height $f(b)$, less the rectangle with width $a$ and height $f(a)$, both in the first quadrant with one vertex at the origin.

3

We do not make any use of the integration by part nor assume that $f$ is differentiable to derive this formula. We only Assume $f$ to be continuous ad bijective. Hence $f$ is either increasing or decreasing.

We recall that $$ \left|\int_a^bh(x)dx\right|$$ represent the area covered by the between the $x$-axis and the curve of $h$ represented in the interval $[a,b]$

  • First case: $f$ is an increasing function enter image description here
  • Second case $f$ is a decreasing function

Now,if we consider the case where the function is deceasing then, a drawing looks as the image below.

enter image description here

One observe that unlike in the first case, the areas formed by $f$ and $f^{-1}$ intercept at $\color{red}{\mathcal{A}}$ Here we evaluate the area $\color{red}{\mathcal{A}}$ in two different ways as follows

  1. Taking into account the rectangle $aQRb$ we get, $$\color{red}{\mathcal{A}} = \int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx - f(b)(b-a)$$
  2. Taking into account the rectangle $f(b)QPf(a)$ we get, $$\color{red}{\mathcal{A}} = \int_{f(b)}^{f(a)} f^{-1}(x) dx - a(f(a)-f(b))$$ finally by equaling both formula we arrive at,

$$ \int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx - f(b)(b-a) = \int_{f(b)}^{f(a)} f^{-1}(x) dx - a(f(a)-f(b)) $$ that is $$ \color{red}{\int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx +\int_{f(a)}^{f(b)} f^{-1}(x) dx = bf(b) - af(a).}$$

Guy Fsone
  • 23,903
-1

It should be almost obvious that the identity in question is an immediate consequence of the formula for "integration by parts". Using integration by parts we have $$\int_{a} ^{b} f(x) \, dx=bf(b) - af(a) - \int_{a} ^{b} xf'(x) \, dx\tag{1}$$ and then we put $f(x) =t,x=f^{-1}(t)$ in the integral on right to get $$\int_{a}^{b}xf'(x)\,dx=\int_{f(a)}^{f(b)}f^{-1}(t)\,dt\tag{2}$$ Our formula follows from $(1)$ and $(2)$. The proof can also be carried out using Riemann-Stieltjes integral. This has the advantage that it avoids the derivative $f'(x) $ and establishes the identity under much weaker conditions on $f$ (namely that $f$ should be strictly monotone on $[a, b] $).


The identity in question has a nice geometric interpretation (see other answers here) which helps to convince us of the truth of the identity, but it does not constitute a proof (in the same way as geometric arguments can not be used to prove mean value theorem or intermediate value theorem).