We're about to begin Lecture 21 on Substitution. Now that we've seen what indefinite integrals are good for, differential equations and more, we turn to the problem of the mechanics of integration. How does one compute an anti-derivative? That is a large and convoluted subject. In this lesson, we'll begin with our first method that of substitution. Our first set of strategies for computing integrals exploits the fact that integration is anti-differentiation. Therefore, integration rules can be derived from differentiation rues. Let's consider, for example, the linearity rule. For derivatives, what this tells us when we take those rules and then integrate them is that integration is also linear. The integral of a sum is the sum of integrals. The integral of a constant times an integrand is that constant times the integral. So, integration, like differentiation is a linear operator as you certainly, already knew. Other differeniations lead to other integration techniques. We are going to focus on the Chain Rule, where tradition dictates the use of u as a function of x. This case, the chain rule says that du is du/du times x, we can integrate both sides and after composing with a function f of u. Then, one obtains what is typically called the u substitution formula, namely the integral of f of u du is the integral of f of u of x times du/dx, dx. Now, of course, this u substitution formula is just the chain rule, in reverse. However, it's very useful if you can determine what is u and what is f. Your goal Is the integral on the left the f of u du, which is hopefully simpler than what you are given on the right, the more complex looking integral in terms of x. It's best to see this through a simple example. Consider the integral of e to the sin of x times cosine of x dx. You may or may not be able to see what the anti-derivative is.
However, if we let u be equal to sign of
x, then du is cosign of x dx, we can see that e to the sine x is really just the exponential of u. Whereas the cosine of x dx is the du term. Thus, by substitution we can say this integral is the same as the integral of e to the u du. Now, of course, we all know that the integral of e to the u is simply e to the u plus a constant. We're not quite done. And that we need to substitute back in for a function of x. So, our original integral evaluates to e to the sine of x plus a constant. Now we could, and should, check that this is actually the correct answer. We should differentiate e to the sine of x, and c. Then, we obtain e to the sine of x times cosine of x dx. That's the wonderful thing about these types of problems. You can always check your results. Now, in this case, choosing the u and choosing the f were easy, almost transparent. This is not always the case. A trickier sort of example would be something like the integral of x times the square root of x minus 1 dx. In this case, what is the u here? What is f of u? In general, it's best to make a substitution that simplifies your integrand to whatever extent possible. In this case, if we were to let u be equal to x minus 1. It would seem to be trivial since du equals dx. However, notice what happens. x is u plus 1. At it's square root of x minus 1 is square root of u. We can therefore expand this intergrand out as u to the 3 halves plus u to the 1 half, notice you could not do that with x. Now we could easily integrate this to yield 2 5th, u to the 5 halves plus 2 3rd, u to the 3 halves. Substituting back in x minus 1 for u yields the answer 2 5th quantity x minus 1 to the 5 halves plus 2 3rd, x minus 1 to the 3 halves plus a constant. I'll leave it to you to check this. Another example that is perhaps not so obvious is the following.
The integral of cosine d theta.
And now it's a bit more apparent which substitution to try. Let's try u equals sine theta. In this case, du is cosine theta d theta, and we see the du sitting right in front of us this becomes the integral of 1 over u squared times du. That we can certainly integrate to yield negative 1 over u plus a constant. Substituting back in we get negative 1 over sine theta. That is negative cosecant theta plus a constant. I'll leave it to you to check. We're going to put these techniques to use in a differential equation that models the growth of a tumor. The Gompertz model for the size N of t of a tumor as a function of time. t is the following differential equation. dN/dt equals negative a times N times log of quantity b times N. Here a is a constant that is positive. And b is a constant the is between 0 and 1. Using the method of separation, we move all of the N's to the left hand side and we obtain dN over n times log of b times n. On the right hand side we're left with negative a, dt. Now we need to integrate both sides of this equation. How do we perform the integral on the left? We're going to have to do a substitution. If we let u b log of b times N than du is equal to dN over N. And we see that this integral is going to simplify dramatically to du over u. On the right hand side, we'll again have the integral of negative a dt. Computing both the integrals give us log of u equals negative at plus a constant. As with the other equations we've done, we're going to exponentiate both sides. To obtain and answer, u is constant e to the negative at. But we're not quite done, because u is not what we were looking for. We were looking for N. And so, we must substitute back in for u log of b times N is constant e to the negative at. Now to solve for N, we're going to have to exponentiate both sides again. Doing so and dividing by b gives us n. The size of the tumor as a function of time t is 1 over b times e to the
constant times e to the negative at.
This is a double exponential. It has an exponential in the exponent. Now what about this constant c? I'll leave it to you to check, but c is given as the log of b times N not where N not is the size of the tumor at time zero. But deriving the solution is not the end of the story. We'd like to know something about how that solution behaves. Let's consider things from the point of view of equilibria. If we set dN/dt equal to 0, what do we observe? We observe that there is an equilibrium at 0. plugging in n equals 0 certainly gives dN/dt equal to 0. And as you can see by taking a limit. And it certainly makes biological sense, that, if the initial size of the tumor is zero, then no tumor will grow. However, there's another equilibrium at N equals 1 over b. In this case, that log term vanishes. What happens when we plot various solutions? N as a function of t. We see that the solution with a nonzero initial condition We'll converge to this one over b equilibrium. This is sometimes called the carrying capacity of the model. Now, indeed if we plot and dot versus N, we will see these two equilibria arising and we will see that 1 over b is a stable equilibrium whereas zero is an unstable equilibrium. This is what linearization will give. Now the global perspective in what we have done in this lesson is all about this u substitution formula. But really, it should go under a different name and you will learn it later in life under the name of the Change of Variables Formula. What we're really doing is changing from x variables to u variables. And this change of coordinates facilitates integration. It makes it easier. For example, if we look at 2x sin x squared, then converting that over to sin of u, make something that's easily integrated to negative cosine of u. And then, we go back to the original x coordinates. That allows us to compute a difficult
integral by means of a simple integral in
a new coordinate system. And that is the important point. Notice that as well, we can run things backward and obtain derivatives of complicated functions by a change of coordinates. That is what we did when we learn the all important chain rule. Now, why is this perspective important when you get to multi-variable calculus you are going to use a more sophisticated change of variables formula to solve some truly difficult integrals. Work now on the simple case and when you get to multi-variable you'll be fully prepared. Substitution or better yet, a change of variables is one important method of integration. But it's merely the first in an increasingly intricate sequence of methods. In our next lesson, we'll introduce a second technique. That, of integration by parts.