Re: The definite integral.

From: William Hughes (wpihughes_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/16/05 

Date: 16 Mar 2005 05:19:02 -0800

David C. Ullrich wrote:

> precisely. I didn't claim that it's necessary to
> actually _prove_ mvt first - no theorem is ever
> necessary, you can always avoid using it by
> inserting the proof instead of citing the theorem.
>

No doubt about it. I cheated.

Still, it has always seemed to me that the
mvt is a slight bit of overkill
(why do we need a result at a
point when we are interested in
the value of an integral? [1])
If I didn't dream the alternate
proof, and can find it, I will
post it here.

             - William Hughes

[1] Sure f' integrable and f'=0 where defined
implies f' has removable discontinuities, so
I can see why a result at a point works. It
just leaves a slightly bad taste.

Relevant Pages