Integration of (Cos X)^2


by sony
Tags: integration
sony
sony is offline
#1
Dec28-04, 11:02 AM
P: 104
Hi, I just don't get this. I'm to lazy to type inn what I've done, so I just took
a picture of my textbook:
http://home.no.net/erfr1/images/1.jpg
http://home.no.net/erfr1/images/2.jpg
You're supposed to end up with the starting point, right? So you can divide the rest by two?

Whatever I try, I get zero... I got the solution from mathematica, but don't understand a thing of it.


Thanks!
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hyperbolic homogeneous polynomials, oh my!
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
'Math detective' analyzes odds for suspicious lottery wins
Muzza
Muzza is offline
#2
Dec28-04, 11:16 AM
P: 696
I'm not exactly clear on what it is you have done, but I'm guessing that you tried to integrate cos^2(x) using partial integration, and the equation you got reduced to 0 = 0? I suppose you expected to get back your original integral after a few iterations, so that you could solve for it. I wouldn't say that's what's "supposed" to happen (but it does happen, but not always, as you've demonstrated).

Instead of partial integration, use the identity cos(2x) = 2cos^2(x) - 1 <=> cos^2(x) = cos(2x)/2 + 1/2.
sony
sony is offline
#3
Dec28-04, 11:22 AM
P: 104
Yes, I tried partial integration. And thank you for the help!

Cheers

mathwonk
mathwonk is offline
#4
Dec28-04, 11:34 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
mathwonk's Avatar
P: 9,428

Integration of (Cos X)^2


integration by parts does work of course but only if in the second step, you refrain from undoing the work of the first step. this can be confusing and is actually easier to do by guesswork.

i.e. the derivative of sincos is cos^2 - sin^2. but sin^2 + cos^2 = 1 is also easy to get as a derivative, namely it is the derivative of x. so the derivative of x + sincos is 2cos^2. now you are done after dividing by 2.

of course you notice here that cos^2 - sin^2 = cos(2x) is also coming in as in the trick suggested above, but here you do not have to know that trick.
dextercioby
dextercioby is offline
#5
Dec28-04, 12:18 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,863
Check post number 7 (mine ) from this thread:sine&cosine squared
I think it sould be pretty clear... U have both the primitives/antiderivatives and the definite integrals of the 2 functions wrt to the limits -\pi/2 and +\pi/2.

Daniel.
t!m
t!m is offline
#6
Dec28-04, 02:22 PM
P: 128
Make sure you read what Muzza said at the end. Just using the identity [tex]\text{cos}^2(x) = \frac{1}{2}(1+\text{cos}(2x))[/tex] makes this a very simple integral.
mathwonk
mathwonk is offline
#7
Dec28-04, 11:17 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
mathwonk's Avatar
P: 9,428
but the point is not everyone has this identity at their disposal.
TenaliRaman
TenaliRaman is offline
#8
Dec28-04, 11:22 PM
P: 646
Really!! I thought it was one of the basic identities in trigonometry usually referred to as the double angle formulae.

-- AI
itchy8me
itchy8me is offline
#9
Mar18-09, 06:16 PM
P: 21
hi,

i must integrate sin^2(x) by partial integration.

i I've done this by taking the 2nd partial ingeral and substituting it with the original integral of sin^2(x); and calculate 0 =0. what is it that i'm doing wrong?

what does mathwonk mean by : "integration by parts does work of course but only if in the second step, you refrain from undoing the work of the first step" ?
Geekchick
Geekchick is offline
#10
Mar18-09, 08:11 PM
P: 74
why must you use integration by parts? When it's very easy to integrate using the power reducing formula.
itchy8me
itchy8me is offline
#11
Mar19-09, 03:11 AM
P: 21
Quote Quote by Geekchick View Post
why must you use integration by parts? When it's very easy to integrate using the power reducing formula.
as far as i know, the power reduction formula is aquired by integration by parts. I must integrate by parts, because it can be done, and that is what the excercise says i must do: integrate using partial integration.
itchy8me
itchy8me is offline
#12
Mar19-09, 03:39 AM
P: 21
got it : http://www.nevada.edu/~cwebster/Teac.../intparts.html

i guess mathwork meant that one shouldn't substitute the original integral into the second partial integral...?
itchy8me
itchy8me is offline
#13
Mar19-09, 07:00 AM
P: 21
Doh!.. that's exactly the same method i was using, i still get 0=0 thus :(
Count Iblis
Count Iblis is offline
#14
Mar19-09, 09:22 AM
P: 2,159
So, it takes more than 4 years for Physics Forums to compute this integral?
itchy8me
itchy8me is offline
#15
Mar19-09, 09:28 AM
P: 21
Quote Quote by Count Iblis View Post
So, it takes more than 4 years for Physics Forums to compute this integral?
hahahah :-p

i'm wondering how seriously i should take the "integrate by parts" bit, if i do a substitution in the second partial integral with a trigonometric identity, would that be considered cheating?
Geekchick
Geekchick is offline
#16
Mar19-09, 04:27 PM
P: 74
you can integrate by parts as long as you use the Pythagorean identity. I don't see how that would be cheating.
itchy8me
itchy8me is offline
#17
Mar19-09, 04:37 PM
P: 21
Quote Quote by Geekchick View Post
you can integrate by parts as long as you use the Pythagorean identity. I don't see how that would be cheating.
well my logic says that i might just as well then substitute sin^2(x) with an identity in the begining. So my question is now, is this integral solvable with integration by parts alone, or MUST i do a substitution somewhere along the line to beable to solve it?
Geekchick
Geekchick is offline
#18
Mar19-09, 04:45 PM
P: 74
Yes, never mind my earlier post I just made the process longer. You can absolutely do it by parts alone. Scratch that I messed up...Give me a minute


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Integration problems. (Integration by parts) Calculus & Beyond Homework 5
Integration help Calculus 3
Integration Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
How should I integrate this differential equation? Calculus 9
Question arrising from integration homework (advanced integration i guess?) Calculus 9