Re: Hi, I would like to solve for f(x)
- From: David C. Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:50:20 -0500
On 25 Aug 2005 15:22:24 -0700, Marc.Mercurio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Yes, int_P^infinity (x+P) f(x) dx = 1 or all P.
>
>Taking the derviative of both sides yields:
>
>f(x) = x^(-1.5)
Does it? If I take the derivative of both sides
(with respect to P) I get
-2P f(P) + int_P^infinity f(x) dx = 0
Differentiating again I get
-2 f(P) - 2P f'(P) -f(P) = 0,
or
(*) f'(x) = -3 f(x)/(2x).
Since f(x) = x^(-1.5) is one solution to (*) it
seems likely that we've both done the calculus
correctly so far. But (*) has many _other_
solutions...
>But plugging this result back into the equation does not equal 1.
>
>Can anyone tell me if there is a solution to this equation or is there
>simply no f(x) that satisfies this equation??
>Note: f(x) can not be a function of P. It should be a function of "x"
>only.
Huh? Yes, f(x) is a function of x only. And f(t) is a function
of t only, f(q) is a function of q only. The way you set up
the notation makes it natural to derive the equation for f(P).
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
- References:
- Hi, I would like to solve for f(x)
- From: Jeffrey Lyons
- Re: Hi, I would like to solve for f(x)
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Hi, I would like to solve for f(x)
- From: Marc . Mercurio
- Hi, I would like to solve for f(x)
- Prev by Date: Re: F_sigma
- Next by Date: Re: Equivalent Forms of the Riemann Hypothesis?
- Previous by thread: Re: Hi, I would like to solve for f(x)
- Next by thread: Re: Hi, I would like to solve for f(x)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|