Let the function {\ displaystyle f (x)} integrable on the segment {\ displaystyle [a; b]} , and is limited by numbers on it {\ displaystyle m} and {\ displaystyle M} so that {\ displaystyle m \ leq f (x) \ leq M} . Then there is such a number {\ displaystyle \ mu} , {\ displaystyle m \ leq \ mu \ leq M} , what
- {\ displaystyle \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} f (x) dx = \ mu (ba)} .
Proof
From inequality {\ displaystyle m \ leq f (x) \ leq M} by the property of the monotonicity of the integral, we have
- {\ displaystyle m (ba) \ leq \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} f (x) dx \ leq M (ba)} .
Marking {\ displaystyle \ mu = {\ frac {1} {ba}} \ int _ {a} ^ {b} f (x) dx} , we obtain the required statement. So certain number {\ displaystyle \ mu} called the average value of the function {\ displaystyle f (x)} on the segment {\ displaystyle [a; b]} , whence the name of the theorem.
Note
If the function {\ displaystyle f (x)} continuous on {\ displaystyle [a; b]} then as {\ displaystyle m} and {\ displaystyle M} we can take its largest and smallest values (which, by the Weierstrass theorem , are achieved), then by the well-known theorem there exists such a point {\ displaystyle c \ in [a; b]} , what {\ displaystyle f (c) = \ mu} , therefore, the statement of the theorem can be rewritten in the form
- {\ displaystyle \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} f (x) dx = f (c) (ba)} .
If we use the Newton-Leibniz formula , then this equality can be written as
- {\ displaystyle F (b) -F (a) = F '(c) \; (ba)} ,
Where {\ displaystyle F (x)} - antiderivative function {\ displaystyle f (x)} , which is nothing but the Lagrange formula for the function {\ displaystyle F (x)} .
Let functions {\ displaystyle f (x)} and {\ displaystyle g (x)} integrable on the segment {\ displaystyle [a; b]} , and still {\ displaystyle m \ leq f (x) \ leq M} , and the second of them does not change sign (that is, either everywhere is non-negative: {\ displaystyle g (x) \ geq 0} or everywhere positive {\ displaystyle g (x) \ leq 0} ) Then there is such a number {\ displaystyle \ mu} , {\ displaystyle m \ leq \ mu \ leq M} , what
- {\ displaystyle \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} f (x) g (x) dx = \ mu \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} g (x) dx} .
Proof
Let be {\ displaystyle g (x)} non-negative, then we have
- {\ displaystyle mg (x) \ leq f (x) g (x) \ leq Mg (x)} ,
whence, in view of the monotonicity of the integral
- {\ displaystyle m \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} g (x) dx \ leq \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} f (x) g (x) dx \ leq M \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} g (x) dx} .
If {\ displaystyle \ int _ {a} ^ {b} g (x) dx = 0} , then from this inequality it follows that {\ displaystyle \ int _ {a} ^ {b} f (x) g (x) dx = 0} , and the statement of the theorem holds for any {\ displaystyle \ mu} . Otherwise, put
- {\ displaystyle \ mu = {\ frac {\ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} f (x) g (x) dx} {\ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} g (x) dx }}} .
The generalization is proved. If the function {\ displaystyle f (x)} continuous, it can be argued that there is a point {\ displaystyle c \ in [a; b]} such that
- {\ displaystyle \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} f (x) g (x) dx = f (c) \ int \ limits _ {a} ^ {b} g (x) dx}
(similar to the previous one).