Differentiation and integration are inverse operations. That is the theorem, and it is why nobody computes a Riemann sum by hand twice.
By the end of this chapter you can
State both parts of the Fundamental Theorem
Evaluate a definite integral using an antiderivative
Differentiate a function defined by an integral, including with the chain rule
Explain why the theorem is true, not just what it says
Chapter 6.1 defined the integral as a limit of sums, which is honest and
unusable — nobody evaluates ∫02x2dx by summing rectangles. The
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is the shortcut, and calling it fundamental is
not decoration. It says that the two central operations of the subject undo each
other.
Part 2: evaluating integrals
Most-used first. If F is any antiderivative of f — that is, F′=f — then
∫abf(x)dx=F(b)−F(a)
∫x2dx=3x3
∫cos(x)dx=sin(x)
∫x21dx=−x1
38=38
checked by the build
So ∫02x2dx=323−303=38 — the number
the rectangles were converging on, obtained in one line.
Any antiderivative works.3x3 and 3x3+17 are
both antiderivatives of x2, and the constant cancels in the subtraction:
(F(b)+C)−(F(a)+C)=F(b)−F(a). That is why the +C that matters so
much for indefinite integrals is irrelevant for definite ones.
Part 1: the derivative of an accumulation
Define a function by an integral with a variable upper limit:
g(x)=∫axf(t)dt
Then g′(x)=f(x).
Read that slowly, because it is the surprising half. Accumulating f and then
differentiating gives f back. Integration and differentiation are inverses,
and this is the precise statement of it.
Why it is true, in one sentence: g(x+h)−g(x) is the area of a thin
strip of width h and height about f(x), so the difference quotient
hg(x+h)−g(x) is about f(x), and exactly f(x) in the limit.
That is the whole proof, and it explains the theorem rather than asserting it:
the rate at which accumulated area grows is the height of the curve at the edge
where it is growing.
With the chain rule
The upper limit is often a function of x, not x itself. Then Part 1 composes
with the chain rule:
dxd∫au(x)f(t)dt=f(u(x))⋅u′(x)
For g(x)=∫0x2sintdt:
g′(x)=sin(x2)⋅2x
dxd(−cos(x2))=2xsin(x2)
checked by the build
That verified line is the check: the integral evaluates to −cos(x2)+1 by
Part 2, and differentiating it gives 2xsin(x2) — the same answer the chain
rule route produced, from an entirely different direction.
When the lower limit varies instead, the sign flips, because swapping the
limits of an integral negates it:
dxd∫u(x)bf(t)dt=−f(u(x))⋅u′(x)
The properties you get for free
All of these follow from the definition and are worth recognising rather than
deriving under time pressure:
∫aaf=0∫baf=−∫abf∫acf=∫abf+∫bcf
The middle one is a convention, and it is the right convention: it makes the
third hold even when b lies outside [a,c], which keeps the algebra uniform
instead of full of special cases.
∫(3x2+2x)dx=x3+x2
∫(sin(x)+cos(x))dx=sin(x)−cos(x)
checked by the build
Linearity comes across from differentiation unchanged — integrals split over
sums and let constants out front — because the sums defining them do.
{
"question": "If g(x) = ∫₁ˣ t³ dt, what is g′(2)?",
"options": [
{
"text": "8, since g′(x) = x³ by Part 1",
"correct": true,
"why": "Part 1 says differentiating an accumulation returns the integrand, so g′(x) = x³ and g′(2) = 8. No evaluation of the integral is needed at all."
},
{
"text": "4, since g(x) = x⁴/4 − 1/4 and g′(2) = 2⁴/4",
"correct": false,
"why": "The antiderivative is right but it was not differentiated — x⁴/4 evaluated at 2 is 4, which is g(2)-ish, not g′(2). Differentiating x⁴/4 gives x³, back to 8."
},
{
"text": "15/4, the value of the integral from 1 to 2",
"correct": false,
"why": "That is g(2), the accumulated amount. The question asks for the rate at which it is accumulating, which is the integrand's height at x = 2."
},
{
"text": "It cannot be found without evaluating the integral first",
"correct": false,
"why": "This is precisely what Part 1 spares you. The derivative of an accumulation is the integrand, so the antiderivative never has to be computed."
}
]
}