Something gone horribly wrong (Integration)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zurtex
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of the function y = cosh(x)e^x, specifically exploring the method of integration by parts and the resulting confusion regarding constants of integration and the validity of certain steps in the process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a method using integration by parts but ends up with a contradictory statement (1 = -1) and seeks clarification on where the error lies.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of the constant of integration in indefinite integrals, suggesting that the misunderstanding may stem from neglecting this constant.
  • Several participants discuss the correct forms of hyperbolic functions and their relationships, with some correcting each other's notation and assumptions.
  • There is a suggestion to rewrite cosh in terms of exponentials to simplify the integration process.
  • Concerns are raised about the use of integration by parts when it may not be necessary, and the potential confusion arising from mixing definite and indefinite integrals.
  • One participant points out that using the same variable for both integration and limits can lead to confusion, recommending the use of a dummy variable instead.
  • Another participant discusses the implications of treating indefinite integrals as classes of functions differing by a constant, which complicates multiplication of such integrals.
  • There is a reference to a famous quote about the nature of mathematical correctness, highlighting the philosophical aspect of mathematical discussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the integration process, with some agreeing on the importance of constants of integration while others debate the necessity of integration by parts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific error in the original integration method.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of integration techniques, particularly in relation to the treatment of constants and the distinction between definite and indefinite integrals. There is also a mention of the lack of clarity in A-level mathematics education regarding these concepts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students studying calculus, particularly those grappling with integration techniques and the subtleties of indefinite versus definite integrals.

Zurtex
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
1
Hi all, I've just recently been going on maths forums to find out why this problem occurs. I understand how to work out the solution but not why the problem occurs in the first place. Anyway here it is:

Where y = cosh(x).e^x work out the general integral of y with respect to x.

As integral(uv') = uv - integral(u'v)
Say u = cosh(x), u'=sinh(x), v'=e^x, v=e^x

So integral(cosh(x).e^x) = cosh(x).e^x - integral(sinh(x).e^x) : Equation 1

Taking integral(sinh(x).e^x), u=sinh(x), u'=cosh(x), v'=e^x, v=e^x
integral(sinh(x).e^x) = sinh(x).e^x - integral(cosh(x).e^x) : Equation 2

Substituting equation 2 into equation 1

integral(cosh(x).e^x) = cosh(x).e^x - sinh(x).e^x + integral(cosh(x).e^x)
cosh(x).e^x - sinh(x).e^x = 0
cosh(x).e^x = sinh(x).e^x
cosh(x) = sinh(x)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Didn't we have a post similar to this recently? You have to be very careful with indefinite integrals- remember that "constant of integration".

What's true is not that ex(cosh x- sinh x)= 0 but that it is a constant.

cosh x= (ex+e-x)/2 and
sinh x= (ex-e-x)/2 so that
(cosh x- siny x)= e-x.

Then ex(cosh x- sinh x)= 1.
 
Sorry I don't understand ho that relates to the problem, where exactly have I gone wrong please?
 
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
sinh x= (ex-e-x)/2
There should be an "i" after the 2, I believe.
 
no i is missing from that statement. there is an h missing from somewhere above though (sinh sin mistake)

as for the OP just write cosh in terms of exponentials, and do the resulting integral of

integrate (1+e^{2x))/2 wrtx
 
Originally posted by Tron3k
There should be an "i" after the 2, I believe.
Your thinking of trig not hpyerbolic.
 
Originally posted by matt grime
as for the OP just write cosh in terms of exponentials, and do the resulting integral of

integrate (1+e^{2x))/2 wrtx
Like I said I know the solution just not why my method end basically on the statement that 1 = -1
 
Originally posted by Zurtex
Your thinking of trig not hpyerbolic.
Whoops, I thought that sinh x = sin(ix) for some reason.
 
Originally posted by Zurtex
Like I said I know the solution just not why my method end basically on the statement that 1 = -1

That's because you're missing the constants of integration out, as someone as mentioned.

I guess I was wondering why you'd use integration by parts whe it isnt' required, esp if you do it twice.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by matt grime
That's because you're missing the constants of integration out, as someone as mentioned.

I guess I was wondering why you'd use integration by parts whe it isnt' required, esp if you do it twice.
Surely as I am dealing with the same integration the constants cancel each other out? Just like when you do an integral between limits.

This is a point that has always confused me. Surely if that was true you could not write the integral[f(x)].integral[f(x)] = {integral[f(x)]}^2 because the 2 different constants would muck it all up.

Very interested :smile:
Originally posted by Tron3k
Whoops, I thought that sinh x = sin(ix) for some reason.
Err not done this yet (next topic) but doesn't sinh x = i.sin(ix)? Thus prooving osborns rule if you say ix = z, or summat...
 
  • #11
Go through the integration with the lower limit as a, and the upper limit as x, and see what happens.

And you aren't even doing the same integrals, so it cannot be the same integration.

Also you're mixing up definite and indefinite things - the limits need some care.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by matt grime
Go through the integration with the lower limit as a, and the upper limit as x, and see what happens.

And you aren't even doing the same integrals, so it cannot be the same integration.

Also you're mixing up definite and indefinite things - the limits need some care.
O.K, so I put limits in, I follow what I've done before and get to this point:

integral[lim a,x](cosh(x).e^x) = cosh(x).e^x - sinh(x).e^x + integral[lim a,x](cosh(x).e^x)

As I actually know cosh(x).e^x = [e^2x + 1]/2, I know this intergrates to [e^2x + 2x]/4 + C, between the limits x and a this goes to [e^2x + 2x]/4 - [e^2a + 2a]/4

Substitution this into the equation we get:

[e^2x + 2x]/4 - [e^2a + 2a]/4 = cosh(x).e^x - sinh(x).e^x + [e^2x + 2x]/4 - [e^2a + 2a]/4

0 = e^x[cosh(x) - sinh(x)]

As shown earlier e^x[cosh(x) - sinh(x)] = 1

0 = 1

I'm still confused exactly where this goes wrong.
 
  • #13
you put the limits only in a few places, you have


int vdu/dx = uv - int udv/dx


it's the uv part where you're going wrong.

you must evaulate uv at the limits x and a. By the way you're using x as a variable and a limit. DON'T DO THIS! Use a dummy variable inside the integral if you need to.


in any case, when you evaluate uv

what you get is


e^x(coshx-sinhx) - e^a(cosha-sinha)=0

which is reassuring, as you know both terms are 1.
 
  • #14
Right thanks.

I think I am just about getting this. Help much appreciated, my teacher did not know why it went wrong (I'm only at A level at the moment).
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Zurtex
Surely if that was true you could not write the integral[f(x)].integral[f(x)] = {integral[f(x)]}^2 because the 2 different constants would muck it all up.

You are absolutely correct about THAT. If "integral[f(x)]dx" is and indefinite integral then it would be incorrect to write "integral[f(x)].integral[f(x)] = {integral[f(x)]}^2" because the two integrals on the left side are not necessarily the same. If however, the integral were "from a to b" for some specific a and b or "from a to x" for some specific a, then it would be correct.
 
  • #16
Perhaps you should remember (it's not really taught at a-level) that the indefinite integral of f(x)dx can be treated as the integral from a to x of f(u)du with a an arbitrary constant. Constants don't quite match, though.

Using integration by parts for indefinite integrals does take some care - and it always goes wrong cos of the limits thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Actually saying " integral[f(x)].integral[f(x)] = {integral[f(x)]}^2" is not only wrong- it doesn't make sense. (As one famous mathematician {and I can't remember who) would say "It's not even wrong"!)
integral[f(x)] in the sense of "indefinite" integral, without limits of integration, is not a number or function, it is a class of functions all differing from one another by a constant. "multiplication" of such classes is not defined.

I think the basic error here is in thinking of "integral[f(x)]" as if it were a number or function when, in fact, it is not.

[tex]\int_a^bf(x)dx[/tex] is a number.

[tex]\int_a^xf(t)dt[/tex] is a function of x. (Choosing the lower limit, a, is the same as choosing a specfic constant.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Well thanks again. Having read over this again and having a bit of a think about I understand integration a little bit better :smile:. I am doing Maths and Further Maths at A level and it doesn't explain it very well.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
(As one famous mathematician {and I can't remember who) would say "It's not even wrong"!)
That would be Wolfgang Pauli. He said, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

I'd consider him a physicist.
 
  • #20
Thanks, meister (well chosen web-name!), I'll try to remember that.
Darn that it's a physicist rather than a mathematician!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K