Can I Simplify This Integral with a Trigonometric Substitution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mad
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around simplifying an integral involving trigonometric substitution and the manipulation of unit vectors within the integral. The integral in question is presented in a vector form, and the original poster seeks clarification on the correctness of their approach to simplification.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the importance of evaluating the integral in scalar form and the potential mistakes in factoring out unit vectors. There is mention of using substitution methods and the relationship to hyperbolic functions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively providing guidance on evaluating the integral correctly, emphasizing careful attention to detail. There is a recognition of different methods that could be employed, such as substitution and identifying specific forms related to the integral.

Contextual Notes

Some participants question the assumptions made about the simplification process and the handling of unit vectors, suggesting that these aspects may lead to errors in the evaluation of the integral.

mad
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Hello all, and sorry for making all those threads :shy:

I just want to know if I can do this (especially the last part)

[tex]\int{} \frac{-k\ \lambda \ dx \ x \vec{i} + 2\ k\ \lambda \dx \ \vec{j}}{(x^2 +4)^{3/2}}[/tex]

= [tex]\int{} \frac{-k\lambda (x \vec{i} - 2\vec{j}) \ dx}{(x^2 +4)^{3/2}}[/tex]
=
[tex]k\lambda \int \frac{(x\vec{i} - 2\vec{j})dx}{(x^2 +4)^{3/2}}[/tex]
=[tex]k\lambda (\vec{i} - \vec{2j}) \int \frac{xdx}{(x^2 +4)^{3/2}}[/tex]

I'm new to integrals.. is what I did okay? I think the last part is where it's wrong, but I can't figure how to let the "x" in the integral without doing this (because x is a variable)
[tex]\lambda \ and \ k[/tex] are constants
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No,i would advise you to evaluate each integral in the scalar form (i.e. to leave out the the unit vectors) and pay attention to every little detail.

Daniel.

P.S.You last integral can be done via a substitution.Do you know this method??
 
dextercioby said:
No,i would advise you to evaluate each integral in the scalar form (i.e. to leave out the the unit vectors) and pay attention to every little detail.

Daniel.

P.S.You last integral can be done via a substitution.Do you know this method??

If by substitution you mean posing u=.. then replacing it, yes, we saw this in class.
I think I'll do what you said, since it seems like the only method (doing them in the scalar form). I tried to do them this way so I didnt have to take in account that it was positive/negative.
Thanks a lot for all the help, in all the threads and questions, dextercioby :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
Yes,ty.You made a mistake when taking out unit vectors outta the integral (namely when factoring).That's why is advised you to do them the normal way.

What do you know about (trigonometric) hyperbolic functions...?

Daniel.
 
I concur with daniel's advice about evaluating the scalar parts separately (and carefully !)

But you don't need a substitution to get the last integral, which can be more easily evaluating by observing the relationship to the differential of [tex](x^2 + k)^{-\frac{1}{2}}[/tex], where [itex]k[/itex] is a constant (4 in this case).
 
Okay,i agree.But what about
[tex]\pm \int \frac{dx}{(x^{2}+4)^{\frac{3}{2}}}[/tex]

Besides the obvious "sinh",could he find a simpler way...?

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
Okay,i agree.But what about
[tex]\pm \int \frac{dx}{(x^{2}+4)^{\frac{3}{2}}}[/tex]

Besides the obvious "sinh",could he find a simpler way...?

Daniel.

Yeah, but this wasn't that. :-p

Have to be able to spot a form like [tex]g'(x)f(g(x))[/tex] instantly when you get adept at calculus.
 
Okay,how about

[tex]f(g(x)) g'(x) dx=f(g(x)) dg(x)=f(u) du[/tex]

where i made a very unobvious and spooky substitution ? :-p :-p

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
Okay,how about

[tex]f(g(x)) g'(x) dx=f(g(x)) dg(x)=f(u) du[/tex]

where i made a very unobvious and spooky substitution ? :-p :-p

Daniel.

That IS spooky, but you could just as easily have spotted the form to begin with. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
64
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K