\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{mathtools} % see http://ctan.org/pkg/mathtools
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\norm{\lVert}{\rVert}
\DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{tr}
\begin{document}
\begin{equation}
\varphi(x)= \varphi(\beta)+ (x-\beta)\varphi^{'}(\alpha)+\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds
\end{equation}
Let us take the integral $\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds$ on the right hand side. \\
\\ Now applying the definition of Green's function, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds =& \int_{\alpha}^{x}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds + \int_{x}^{\beta}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds.\\
=& \int_{\alpha}^{x}(x-\beta)\varphi^{''}(s)ds + \int_{x}^{\beta}(s-\beta)\varphi^{''}(s)ds.\\
=& (x - \beta ) \int_{\alpha}^{x} \varphi^{''}(s)ds + (s - \beta )\int_{x }^{\beta}\varphi^{''}(s) ds - \left[\int_{x}^{\beta}\left(\frac{d}{ds}(s-\beta ) \int \varphi^{''}(s) ds \right) ds\right] \\
=& (x -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(s) |_{\alpha}^{x} + (s-\beta)\varphi^{'}(s) |_{x}^{\beta} - \int_{x}^{\beta} 1 \cdot \varphi{'}(s)ds. \\
=& (x -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(x) - (x -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(\alpha) + (\beta -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(\beta) - (x -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(x) - \varphi(s) |_{x}^{\beta}\\
=&\varphi^{'}(x)\left[(x-\beta)-(x-\beta)\right] - (x-\beta)\varphi^{'}(\alpha) - \varphi(\beta)+\varphi(x)\\
&= \varphi(x)-\varphi(\beta)-(x-\beta)\varphi^{'}(\alpha)\\
\Rightarrow \qquad \varphi(x) = \varphi(\beta) +(x- \beta ) \varphi^{'}(\alpha) + \int_{\alpha }^{\beta} G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds.\\
\text{Which is the required proof of Lemma.}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{document}
- 103
- 21
1 Answers
How about this?
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{mathtools} % see http://ctan.org/pkg/mathtools
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\norm{\lVert}{\rVert}
\DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{tr}
\begin{document}
\begin{equation}
\varphi(x)= \varphi(\beta)+ (x-\beta)\varphi^{'}(\alpha)+\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds
\end{equation}
Let us take the integral $\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds$ on the right hand side. \
\ Now applying the definition of Green's function, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds &=& \int_{\alpha}^{x}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds + \int_{x}^{\beta}G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds.\
&=& \int_{\alpha}^{x}(x-\beta)\varphi^{''}(s)ds + \int_{x}^{\beta}(s-\beta)\varphi^{''}(s)ds.\
&=& (x - \beta ) \int_{\alpha}^{x} \varphi^{''}(s)ds + (s - \beta )\int_{x }^{\beta}\varphi^{''}(s) ds - \left[\int_{x}^{\beta}\left(\frac{d}{ds}(s-\beta ) \int \varphi^{''}(s) ds \right) ds\right] \
&=& (x -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(s) |{\alpha}^{x} + (s-\beta)\varphi^{'}(s) |{x}^{\beta} - \int_{x}^{\beta} 1 \cdot \varphi{'}(s)ds. \
&=& (x -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(x) - (x -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(\alpha) + (\beta -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(\beta) - (x -\beta ) \varphi^{'}(x) - \varphi(s) |{x}^{\beta}\
&=& \varphi^{'}(x)\left[(x-\beta)-(x-\beta)\right] - (x-\beta)\varphi^{'}(\alpha) - \varphi(\beta)+\varphi(x)\
&=& \varphi(x)-\varphi(\beta)-(x-\beta)\varphi^{'}(\alpha)\
\Rightarrow \qquad \varphi(x) &=& \varphi(\beta) +(x- \beta ) \varphi^{'}(\alpha) + \int{\alpha }^{\beta} G_{2}(x,s)\varphi^{''}(s)ds,
\end{eqnarray}
which is the required proof of Lemma.
\end{document}
- 7,992
-
1
-
@Werner, I hope it is OK for me to focus only on the issue raised by OP. Thanks for your comments. – citsahcots Aug 05 '21 at 16:58
-
It's often the case to just focus on that, since we usually request those who ask questions to only ask a single question. I'd suggest to also prod folks to use common good practices on other things if they arise. In this case, the use of
eqnarray. In a similar way, if someone just provides a code snippet, the answerer often wraps the snippet with a\documentclassand some packages... sometimes these packages aren't used by the OP, but it gives them a suggestion as to what a document structure would look like to produce the output; that is, you're doing more than what was asked. – Werner Aug 05 '21 at 17:46 -
Nice to know that it's merely a suggestion. Your one-line comment gave me the wrong impression that this is a requirement for people posting a potential answer. – citsahcots Aug 05 '21 at 19:20
-
Correct. Asking the appropriate question is difficult, so giving people an extra nugget is not a bad idea. Answers are your own to do with what you want. The community will decide how it's valued from there. – Werner Aug 05 '21 at 19:31
-
It would have been nicer if a suggestion can be provided in a more friendly way. – citsahcots Aug 05 '21 at 19:58
-
...regarding my first comment? Okay: "Can you please clarify why you're using hard line breaks
\\andeqnarray(even though it doesn't form part of the question)? The former is not necessary with the introduction of empty lines within the code that forces paragraph breaks. The latter stems from an FAQ where it is well-known thatalignshould be used instead ofeqnarray. While your answer is sufficient in addressing the main question, it could be better in addressing some peripheral improvements to code practice as well." – Werner Aug 05 '21 at 21:15 -
Great. Thanks for the friendly suggestion. My answer focused on the issue raised by OP, trying to minimize the efforts modify OP's example into a solution addressing the main question. It's far from perfect. Just a quick fix. Campa already gave a much better answer. I hope it is OK to leave my answer as it is. – citsahcots Aug 05 '21 at 22:25
-
1


eqnarrayit is broken env only kept for compatability, change it toalign*instead, and here use&=not=&. Secondly you're missing&on the last row, so alignment thinks everything needs to go into the left column of the alignment. Third, never use\\in the text, if you find your self using\\in the text, then you're doing something wrong. There should be a new paragraph there, aka a blank line in the code (and yes, new paragraphs should be indented, it does so for a reason). – daleif Aug 04 '21 at 07:53eqnarrayshould never be used: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/197/3929 – daleif Aug 04 '21 at 07:56