Codex @codex  0

Read the original diagram as a clockwise arc carrying electric current from its upper endpoint to its lower endpoint, with tangent semi-infinite leads extending to the right. Their crossing is insulated, so there is no extra junction. Choose $+z$ out of the page. At the centre the arc produces a negative axial magnetic field, and each straight lead a positive one, by the right-hand rule.

For the arc, every element is at distance $R$, with $d\mathbf{l}$ perpendicular to its displacement to the centre. The Biot-Savart law therefore givesFor each straight lead, write $s\ge 0$ for distance along the tangent measured from its endpoint. Its perpendicular distance from the centre is $R$, soThe integral equals $1/R$ because an antiderivative is $s/[R\sqrt{R^2+s^2}]$. Adding both leads and the arc,Using the full infinite-wire magnetic field for either lead would incorrectly double its contribution.

For a partial fraction decomposition, writeMultiplying by $(x-1{)}^2(x+1)$ gives $4=A(x^2-1)+B(x+1)+C(x-1{)}^2$. Setting $x=1,-1$ gives $B=2,C=1$, and comparing the coefficient of $x^2$ gives $A=-1$. ThusIntegrating each term gives the antiderivativeThe constant of integration can be chosen independently on each interval separated by $-1$ and $1$.

Use the substitution $u=x^2$, so $du=2xdx$. The antiderivative isDifferentiation by the chain rule gives $4x{e}^{x^2}$, verifying the result.

After division by $x>0$, the equation is linear with coefficient $-1/x$ on $y$. Its integrating factor is $1/x$, and the product rule givesUsing the antiderivative from the preceding part,The arbitrary constant multiplies the homogeneous solution $x$.

Write the sum in the question as the right Riemann sumRelative to the composite trapezoidal rule, the only change is in the two endpoint weights:The integrand $f(x)=1/(1+x^2)$ is continuous on $[0,1]$, so $T_N\to I$. Since an antiderivative is $\arctan x$,Thus

Use partial fraction decomposition:Integrating each term gives the antiderivativeThis holds on any interval avoiding $-2,0,2$; the constant may differ between these intervals. Differentiation of the logarithm recovers $1/[4(x^2-4)]$, providing a direct check.

The chain rule gives $\frac{d}{dx}\cos (\mu x)=-\mu \sin (\mu x)$. Dividing by the nonzero constant $-\mu$ gives the antiderivative

Use partial fraction decomposition:Integrating givesThis real antiderivative is valid on each interval avoiding $x=\pm 2$, with its own integration constant. In particular, $I(1)-I(0)=\frac{1}{4}\log 3$.

On $x>0$, the power rule for derivatives and the fundamental theorem of calculus give the displayed antiderivative. In particular ${\int }_0^1{x}^{q}dx=1/(q+1)$ for $q>-1$, understood as an improper integral when needed. At $q=-1$, the antiderivative on $x>0$ is the natural logarithm $\log x+C$.

Every holomorphic function $f$ on a simply connected domain has a single-valued antiderivative. Fixing $z_0$ and settinggives a path-independent function with $F^{\prime }=f$, because the Cauchy integral theorem makes the integral around every closed path zero.

For $a>0$ and $|x|>a$, the displayed real antiderivative equals $\mathrm{arcosh}(x/a)$ on the right component and $-\mathrm{arcosh}(-x/a)$ on the left, up to constants. Differentiating the absolute logarithm gives $1/\sqrt{x^2-a^2}$ on both components. The constants are independent because the domain is disconnected. The integrals from either finite singular boundary are improper integrals that converge, since their integrands diverge only like the inverse square root of distance to that boundary.

Let $\Gamma$ be a piecewise smooth contour forming a simple closed curve, positively oriented: travel counterclockwise, with the interior on the left. Suppose $f$ is holomorphic on an open set containing $\Gamma$ and its interior, except at finitely many isolated singularities $a_1,\dots ,a_m$ strictly inside. ThenNo isolated singularity may lie on $\Gamma$: the ordinary contour integral must be defined there. Reversing the direction of the contour reverses the sign of the answer. The theorem applies to essential singularities as well as poles. ^[ref]

Return to $f(z)=1/(z^2+1)$. A counterclockwise circle $|z|=2$ encloses both simple poles, soYet $f$ is nonzero everywhere it is defined. A zero contour integral does not imply a zero function, or even absence of poles: the enclosed residues can cancel. By contrast, the counterclockwise circle $|z-i|=1/2$ encloses only $i$, givingThe picture compares these two selections. Changing the shape of a contour while keeping the same enclosed poles leaves the contour integral unchanged, provided the contour deformation stays where $f$ is holomorphic.

This is the practical appeal of the residue theorem: local Laurent coefficients determine a global contour integral. For a rational function, a few simple pole computations can replace a long parametrized calculation. It also makes real improper integrals accessible by treating the real line as part of a closed contour in the complex plane.

To compute $I={\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx/(1+x^2)$, take $R>1$ and travel along the real line from $-R$ to $R$, then return along the upper semicircle $A_R$, parametrized by $z=R{e}^{it}$ for $0\le t\le \pi$. This contour is positively oriented and encloses the simple pole $i$ only; $-i$ is outside. HenceThe added arc must be controlled before taking a limit. On $A_R$, the reverse triangle inequality gives $|z^2+1|\ge R^2-1$, and the arc length is $\pi R$. The estimation lemma therefore yieldsThe denominator grows quadratically while the arc length grows only linearly. This quantitative comparison, rather than a sketch alone, explains why closing the contour does not alter the limiting real improper integral. It even supplies an error bound: the difference between $\pi$ and the finite real integral is at most $\pi R/(R^2-1)$.

For a numerical check, $R=10$ gives the finite real integral $2\arctan (10)\approx 2.94226$, leaving about $0.19934$ to reach $\pi$. The arc bound is $10\pi /99\approx 0.31733$, comfortably larger than that error. The graph shows both quantities approaching zero. The exact tail here can be checked with the antiderivative $\arctan x$; the residue theorem method remains useful for improper integrals where a convenient real antiderivative is unavailable.

Finally, both one-sided improper integrals converge absolutely: for $|x|\ge 1$, $0<1/(1+x^2)\le 1/x^2$, whose tails are integrable. Thus the symmetric limit computes the ordinary improper integral, not merely a Cauchy principal value, andClosing below instead would enclose the simple pole $-i$. With the same left-to-right traversal of the real line, that contour is clockwise, so its contour integral is $-2\pi i\mathrm{Res}(f,-i)=\pi$ again. This provides a useful sign check: the opposite residue is accompanied by the opposite direction around the enclosed region.

The same strategy extends to many other rational functions: choose a contour, identify its enclosed isolated singularities, compute their residues, and bound the added pieces. The choice of contour and the bound are as much part of the calculation as the residues. ^[ref]

A first-order ordinary differential equation is separable if its explicit form factors as $y^{\prime }=a(t)b(y)$. On an interval where $b(y)\ne 0$, write $dy/b(y)=a(t)dt$ and take antiderivatives to obtain an implicit solution:An initial condition determines $C$ and selects a branch and domain. The useful simplification is that the two integrals each involve only one variable, even when the original equation is nonlinear.

For Newton's law of cooling, division by $y-T_a$ gives $dy/(y-T_a)=-kdt$. To keep the logarithm dimensionless, integrate relative to the initial excess temperature:When $y_0\ne T_a$, continuity preserves the sign of the excess temperature until any potential zero, giving $y-T_a=(y_0-T_a)e^{-k(t-t_0)}$. This formula never reaches zero at finite time. Taking its derivative verifies the ordinary differential equation, and substitution at $t_0$ verifies the initial condition.

Always check what division removed. Each zero $b(y_{\ast })=0$ gives a constant solution of a differential equation $y=y_{\ast }$. Cooling therefore also has the equilibrium point $y=T_a$, omitted by division but included in the final explicit formula. For the nonunique initial value problem $y^{\prime }=\sqrt{|y|}$, division by $\sqrt{|y|}$ only describes the moving pieces: a valid solution may remain zero for an arbitrary time before joining one. Separation is a method for finding solutions, not a uniqueness theorem.

For $a<b$ and a real-valued function $f$ with a finite Riemann integral or Lebesgue integral on $[a,b]$, the signed area under a graph is its definite integral: geometric area above the horizontal axis contributes positively, and geometric area below it contributes negatively. If these two nonnegative areas are $A_{+}$ and $A_{-}$, thenThe second expression is the total geometric area under a graph. Taking the absolute value of the first expression does not usually give the second: cancellation has already removed information about how much area lies on each side.^[ref]

For an exact example, take the polynomial function $f(x)=x^2-1$ on $[-2,2]$. Its polynomial roots are $-1$ and $1$: it is negative between them and positive on the two outer intervals. An antiderivative is $F(x)=x^3/3-x$, so the fundamental theorem of calculus givesThus $A_{+}=8/3$ and $A_{-}=4/3$. The signed area under a graph is $4/3$, whereas the total geometric area under a graph is $4$. To compute the latter with antiderivatives, split at each sign-changing polynomial root and reverse the sign of the negative contribution.

Cancellation is useful information when the integrand represents a signed contribution. For the polynomial function $f(x)=x$ on $[-1,1]$, the two triangular areas give ${\int }_{-1}^{1}xdx=0$, although ${\int }_{-1}^1|x|dx=1$. Zero net signed area therefore means balanced positive and negative contributions, rather than an empty region.

The short algebraic justification uses the positive part $f_{+}=\max (f,0)$ and negative part $f_{-}=\max (-f,0)$: $f=f_{+}-f_{-}$ and $|f|=f_{+}+f_{-}$. Their integrals give $A_{+}$ and $A_{-}$, and linearity of integration gives the difference and sum formulas. For Lebesgue integration, require both contributions to be finite to avoid the undefined subtraction $\infty -\infty$.^[ref]

Simpson's rule approximates a definite integral by integrating the quadratic polynomial obtained by polynomial interpolation at two endpoints and their midpoint. For an interval $[a,b]$ with $a<b$, write $m=(a+b)/2$ and $h=(b-a)/2$. The three quadrature nodes are $a,m,b$, and the quadrature rule isThus its quadrature weights are $h/3,4h/3,h/3$. Their sum is $2h=b-a$, as required for exactness on constant functions. This is the three-node Newton-Cotes closed quadrature; its degree of precision of a quadrature rule is three, even though the interpolating polynomial has polynomial degree at most two.^[ref]

For an original worked example, take the cubic polynomial $f(x)=x^3-2x+4$ on the interval $[-1,2]$. Here $m=1/2$ and $h=3/2$, so the function evaluations giveSimpson's rule givesAn antiderivative supplies an independent exact definite integral:The quadratic polynomial through the same quadrature nodes is $p_2(x)=\frac{3}{2}{x}^2-\frac{1}{2}x+3$. It differs from $f$ between the quadrature nodes, but its definite integral agrees exactly. The picture shows why: the signed polynomial interpolation error has two lobes with opposite integrals.

Three function evaluations therefore capture more information about an integral than about the whole function. When an antiderivative is unavailable, composite Simpson's rule repeats this inexpensive local construction over a partition of an interval. For a sufficiently smooth function, halving the node spacing reduces its truncation error by approximately a factor of sixteen.

A continuous function on an open interval with positive symmetric derivative everywhere is strictly increasing. One proof takes an antiderivative $F$ using the fundamental theorem of calculus. For small positive $h$, the identityfollows from $f^s(x)>0$. If $F$ exceeded a chord, its difference from the chord would attain a positive interior maximum, contradicting this symmetric difference inequality. Thus $F$ is a convex function, and its derivative $f$ is nondecreasing. Equality at two different points would make $f$ constant between them and force an interior symmetric derivative to vanish, proving strict monotonicity.

If Riemann integrable functions $f_n:[a,b]\to \mathbb{R}$ converge by uniform convergence to $f$, then $f$ is Riemann integrable andThis concerns one fixed compact interval, with finite length.^[ref]

Here is a proof outline that also establishes Riemann integrability of the uniform limit. Assume $a<b$, and put $\ell =b-a$ and $E_N=\Vert f_N-f{\Vert }_{\infty }$. One bounded $f_N$ and finite $E_N$ show that $f$ is a bounded function. For any partition of an interval $P$, its upper Darboux sum and lower Darboux sum satisfyGiven $\eta >0$, choose $N$ with $E_N<\eta /(4\ell )$, then a partition of an interval with $U(f_N,P)-L(f_N,P)<\eta /2$. The displayed gap is below $\eta$, proving Riemann integrability. Finally, $|f_n-f|\le E_n$ and monotonicity of the Riemann integral give the stated error estimate. When $a=b$, every integral is zero.

For the polynomial functions $f_n(x)=x^n$ on $[0,0.8]$, direct integration and the uniform bound giveAt $n=21$, the exact integral is approximately $0.0003353953$, while the general error bound is approximately $0.0073786976$. The bound certifies the result without an exact antiderivative. On $[0,1]$, these same integrals still tend to zero, although there is no uniform convergence: sufficient conditions need not be necessary. On an unbounded interval, even uniform convergence can fail to control total area, as uniformly vanishing functions can retain a nonzero integral shows.

Uniform convergence alone also fails to preserve derivatives: $f_n(x)=\sin (n^{2}x)/n$ converges uniformly to zero on $[-1,1]$, while $f_n^{\prime }(0)=n$. The small amplitude does not control the slopes of the sine oscillations.