Fundamental theorem of calculus

Two ideas in calculus look unrelated at first: differentiation, which measures instantaneous rates of change, and definite integration, which measures accumulated area under a curve as a limit of infinitely many infinitesimally thin rectangles. The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is the bridge between them. It says that to evaluate a definite integral you never need to sum those rectangles directly — you only need one antiderivative of the integrand, evaluated at the two endpoints. This single fact is why the entire Integrals unit spends so much effort building antiderivative-finding skills: substitution, integration by parts, partial fractions, and standard forms are all, ultimately, in service of this one theorem. The ISC syllabus states it without proof, but you must apply it fluently on every definite-integral question.

The core insight

If FF is any antiderivative of a continuous function ff on [a,b][a,b], then ∫abf(x) dx=F(b)−F(a)\int_a^b f(x)\,dx = F(b)-F(a), so evaluating a definite integral reduces to finding one antiderivative and substituting the endpoints.

The core idea

The statement. For ff continuous on [a,b][a,b], if F′(x)=f(x)F'(x) = f(x) for every xx in [a,b][a,b], then:

∫abf(x) dx=F(b)−F(a)\int_a^b f(x)\,dx = F(b) - F(a)

where: ff is the integrand, FF is any antiderivative of ff (i.e. ∫f(x) dx=F(x)+C\int f(x)\,dx = F(x)+C), and a,ba,b are the lower and upper limits of integration. The result is often abbreviated [F(x)]ab=F(b)−F(a)\big[F(x)\big]_a^b = F(b)-F(a).

Why the constant CC never matters here. An indefinite integral is a whole family of functions, F(x)+CF(x)+C, since differentiating any constant gives zero. But in a definite integral the CC cancels automatically: [F(x)+C]ab=(F(b)+C)−(F(a)+C)=F(b)−F(a)\big[F(x)+C\big]_a^b = (F(b)+C)-(F(a)+C) = F(b)-F(a). So you can drop CC the moment you switch from indefinite to definite integration — a definite integral is always a single number, never a family.

The differentiation form. The theorem also has a second face: differentiating the "area accumulated so far" gives back the original function,

ddx∫axf(t) dt=f(x)\frac{d}{dx}\int_a^x f(t)\,dt = f(x)

where: the left side is the derivative, with respect to the upper limit xx, of the area function built from ff. ISC problems mainly use the evaluation form F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a), but this differentiation form is what makes the theorem "fundamental" — it shows integration and differentiation undo each other.

Why this saves so much work. Computing ∫abf(x) dx\int_a^b f(x)\,dx directly from its limit-of-sums (Riemann-sum) definition means summing infinitely many thin rectangular strips and taking a limit as their width shrinks to zero — a genuinely hard calculation for anything beyond the simplest functions. The theorem replaces that entire limiting process with two substitutions: find any FF, then compute F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a).

Continuity matters. The theorem as used at this level requires ff to be continuous on the closed interval [a,b][a,b] — no jumps, no undefined points, no vertical asymptotes inside the interval. If the integrand has a discontinuity somewhere inside [a,b][a,b], you cannot apply F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a) across the whole interval in one step; instead you split the integral at the discontinuity into two (or more) pieces, each continuous, and apply the theorem separately on each piece before adding the results. This restriction rarely bites in ISC problems, since most integrands there (polynomials, trigonometric, exponential, and their standard combinations) are continuous wherever they are defined, but it is worth checking, especially for integrands with a denominator that could vanish inside [a,b][a,b].

Figure
A curve with the shaded area under it from a to b, alongside the same area computed as F of b minus F of a
Definite integral as area, evaluated via an antiderivative x y a b area = F(b) minus F(a) shaded region = the value of the integral y = f(x)
Derivation AEvaluating a definite integral from an antiderivative

The goal is to compute ∫13(2x+1) dx\displaystyle\int_1^3 (2x+1)\,dx using the Fundamental Theorem, showing every substitution step explicitly so the mechanics of "find FF, then subtract" are completely transparent before applying them to other integrands in the worked example below.

Step 1. Find any antiderivative of the integrand. Since ddx(x2+x)=2x+1\dfrac{d}{dx}(x^2+x) = 2x+1, we may take F(x)=x2+xF(x) = x^2+x (dropping the arbitrary constant, since it will cancel).

Step 2. Evaluate FF at the upper limit. F(3)=32+3=9+3=12F(3) = 3^2+3 = 9+3 = 12.

Step 3. Evaluate FF at the lower limit. F(1)=12+1=1+1=2F(1) = 1^2+1 = 1+1 = 2.

Step 4. Subtract, upper minus lower: ∫13(2x+1) dx=F(3)−F(1)=12−2=10\displaystyle\int_1^3(2x+1)\,dx = F(3)-F(1) = 12-2 = 10. Sanity check. y=2x+1y=2x+1 is a straight line, so the shaded region is a trapezium with parallel sides y(1)=3y(1)=3 and y(3)=7y(3)=7 and width 22: area =3+72×2=10=\dfrac{3+7}{2}\times2=10, matching Step 4 exactly.

Worked example

Evaluate ∫0π/2cos⁡x dx\displaystyle\int_0^{\pi/2}\cos x\,dx, then use the theorem on two more integrands that require prior techniques.

Step 1. Antiderivative: since ddx(sin⁡x)=cos⁡x\dfrac{d}{dx}(\sin x) = \cos x, take F(x)=sin⁡xF(x)=\sin x. Then ∫0π/2cos⁡x dx=[sin⁡x]0π/2=sin⁡π2−sin⁡0=1−0=1\displaystyle\int_0^{\pi/2}\cos x\,dx = \big[\sin x\big]_0^{\pi/2} = \sin\dfrac{\pi}{2}-\sin 0 = 1-0=1.

Step 2. Now try ∫01x ex2 dx\displaystyle\int_0^1 x\,e^{x^2}\,dx, which needs substitution first. Let t=x2t=x^2, so dt=2x dxdt=2x\,dx, i.e. x dx=dt2x\,dx=\dfrac{dt}{2}; the limits change too, since x=0⇒t=0x=0\Rightarrow t=0 and x=1⇒t=1x=1\Rightarrow t=1. Then ∫01xex2dx=∫01et⋅dt2=12[et]01=12(e−1)\displaystyle\int_0^1 xe^{x^2}dx = \int_0^1 e^t\cdot\frac{dt}{2} = \frac12\big[e^t\big]_0^1 = \frac12(e-1). The theorem applies smoothly here, provided the limits are converted to the new variable tt as well.

Step 3. Finally ∫01x ex dx\displaystyle\int_0^1 x\,e^x\,dx, which needs integration by parts: ∫xex dx=ex(x−1)+C\int xe^x\,dx = e^x(x-1)+C. Applying the theorem, ∫01xex dx=[ex(x−1)]01=e1(0)−e0(−1)=0−(−1)=1\displaystyle\int_0^1 xe^x\,dx = \big[e^x(x-1)\big]_0^1 = e^1(0)-e^0(-1) = 0-(-1)=1.

Final answers: ∫0π/2cos⁡x dx=1\int_0^{\pi/2}\cos x\,dx = 1, ∫01xex2dx=e−12\int_0^1 xe^{x^2}dx = \dfrac{e-1}{2}, and ∫01xex dx=1\int_0^1 xe^x\,dx = 1. All three use the same last move, F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a), regardless of which technique produced FF.

Competitive stretch

For ∫01xex2dx\displaystyle\int_0^1 xe^{x^2}dx, a common shortcut skips the explicit substitution and reads off the antiderivative directly: since ddx(12ex2)=x ex2\dfrac{d}{dx}\left(\tfrac12 e^{x^2}\right) = x\,e^{x^2} by the chain rule, F(x)=12ex2F(x)=\tfrac12 e^{x^2} immediately, giving F(1)−F(0)=12(e−1)F(1)-F(0) = \tfrac12(e-1) in one line — the same answer, reached by spotting the antiderivative pattern instead of substituting.

Common traps

  • Re-adding the constant CC in a definite integral — it is unnecessary, since it always cancels in F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a); carrying it around risks arithmetic slips.
  • Forgetting to change the limits of integration after a substitution — either convert limits to the new variable throughout, or substitute back to the original variable first, but never mix the two approaches.
  • Sign or arithmetic slips in F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a), especially when F(a)F(a) is negative — always write both evaluations separately before subtracting.
  • Assuming the theorem applies when ff is discontinuous somewhere in [a,b][a,b], or confusing the definite-integral value with the antiderivative F(x)F(x) itself — a jump or undefined point inside the interval means the integral must be split first, and a definite integral is a single number, not the function F(x)F(x); writing "∫abf(x) dx=F(x)\int_a^b f(x)\,dx = F(x)" without evaluating at the limits is incomplete.

Ask the tutor: Want a walkthrough of how to correctly switch limits when substituting inside a definite integral, or which antiderivative technique to pick before applying the theorem?

Why does the constant of integration disappear in a definite integral but not an indefinite one?

An indefinite integral ∫f(x) dx=F(x)+C\int f(x)\,dx = F(x)+C represents a whole family of antiderivatives, since adding any constant does not change the derivative. A definite integral, however, asks for F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a) using some particular antiderivative. If you use F(x)+CF(x)+C, the two constants are identical at both endpoints and cancel: (F(b)+C)−(F(a)+C)=F(b)−F(a)(F(b)+C)-(F(a)+C)=F(b)-F(a). That is why you can simply pick C=0C=0 and use the simplest antiderivative when evaluating a definite integral.

Do I always need substitution or integration by parts before I can apply the Fundamental Theorem?

Only if the integrand is not already a standard form you can antidifferentiate directly. The Fundamental Theorem itself has nothing to do with which technique finds FF — it only tells you what to do once FF is found. So the real workflow for a definite integral is: first use whatever indefinite-integration technique fits the integrand (substitution, parts, partial fractions, standard forms) to get F(x)F(x), and only then apply F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a). The theorem is always the last step, never the first.

If I get a negative value for a definite integral, does that mean I made an error?

Not necessarily. F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a) can be negative when the curve lies below the x-axis over part or all of [a,b][a,b], since the "signed area" there is counted as negative. A negative numeric answer is valid; it just means the net signed area is negative, not that the region has no area. What genuinely signals an error is a negative answer for an integrand that is entirely positive on [a,b][a,b] (like cos⁡x\cos x on [0,π/2][0,\pi/2]) — in that case, recheck your antiderivative and the order of subtraction, F(b)−F(a)F(b)-F(a), not F(a)−F(b)F(a)-F(b).

Before this

Where this leads