On Twitter Sarah Griffith made the following wonderful observation:
Indeed, I think this fact — that the integral of a rational polynomial in one variable between rational bounds is rational — is very non-obvious geometrically, even though it’s clear from the fundamental theorem of calculus!
Why does this region have rational area?
I came up with a synthetic proof, which I want to share here. It give a geometric proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus for polynomials, which I think is pretty cool, but it also proves more, and points in the direction of some interesting generalizations.
Here’s the argument. By linearity of the integral, it’s enough to show that ∫a0xndx=an+1n+1
So for example the figure below, swept out by an expanding square, computes the integral ∫a0x2dx.
Integating x2
I claim that this figure can be dissected into n! n+1-simplices, each of which has volume an+1(n+1)!.
We first show that the volume of an n+1-simplex with side length a is an+1(n+1)!, as claimed. It suffices to show that an n+1-cube of side length a (which has volume an) can be dissected into (n+1)! congruent n+1-simplices. But we can view the cube as the region 0≤x1,⋯,xn+1≤a.
Now why does our figure (swept out by a growing n-cube) admit a dissection into n! n+1-simplices? It’s because the n-cube can be dissected into n! simplices by what we just did, and each of these sweeps out an n+1-simplex! So we’re done.
A dissection of our region into 2! 3-simplices
By the way, @yougetaquote also found a beautiful (and closely related) probabilistic argument:
Scissors integrals
I claim this argument actually proves something more, which I think is pretty cool — the point is that because it works entirely via dissection, it actually proves something in the “scissors congruence” group. As a reminder, the scissors congruence group for Rn, denoted S(n) is the free Abelian group on the set of n-dimensional polytopes in Rn, modulo the following relations:
[P]=[P1]+[P2] if P can be dissected into P1,P2, and
[P]=[gP] for g any isometry of Rn (for the usual metric).
The direct sum R=⨁nS(n)
I would like to think of a polytope P as analogous to a monomial, and describe a way of integrating it over various regions, to get new elements of R. Namely, let Gn be the subgroup of automorphisms (not isometries!) of Rn generated by scalings and translations. That is, Gn is the subgroup of affine-linear transformations of the form (x1,⋯,xn)↦(a1x1+b1,⋯,anxn+bn)
Now let D⊂Gn be any d-dimensional polytope, under the identification of Gn with R2n above. Then for an n-dimensional polytope P in Rn, I will define the scissors integral ∫SCDP:=[⋃d∈D(d,dP)⊂R2n×Rn]
Note: It’s not clear to me how this depends on D and P; for example, there are some natural (scissor-type) relations on D,P so that the integral only depends on the congruence-class of D,P. It would be very interesting to work out the maximal (or a large) set of relations for which this is true.
How does this relate to the stuff above? There’s a very natural 1-dimensional polytope in Gn for each n, which I’ll denote [a,b] (suppressing the dependence on n). This consists of maps of the form (x1,⋯,xn)↦(cx1,⋯,cxn)
There’s also an extremely natural polytope x⊂R,x:=[0,1],
Then the argument above in fact shows (n+1)∫baxndx=[b]n+1−[a]n+1.
This is a scissors fundamental theorem of calculus! One obtains the usual fundamental theorem of calculus (for polynomials) by applying the function that sends a (scissors congruence class of) polytope to its volume.
You’ll note that I multiplied by n+1 on the left side of the equation, rather than dividing on the right as one might usually do. That’s because this is what the argument actually gives, and I’m not sure if SC(n+1) (where both sides of the equation live) is uniquely divisible. For n=0,1,2, they are, and so one can divide both sides by n+1. [EDIT: Sasha Shmakov points out to me that SC(n) is actually a real vector space, and hence clearly uniquely divisible, so you can divide by n+1 if you want.]
What other integrals can you compute? How does the integral change as one varies P,D? I’ll let you know when I think about this more myself! In particular, I find it very plausible that there’s a “fundamental theorem of calculus” for a much broader class of polytopes P,D.