I don't think you should be saying this sort of thing!
No I haven't.
I don't need to; it's a commonly known integrand and even if it wasn't it's easily derived. On top of that, having double-checked the first post, it was given correctly anyway.
Indeed!
No it isn't. That's
your incorrect interpretation of it.
I think the OP may have accidentally incorrectly said he came to the same answer as yours, but it was pretty obvious that they knew the integrand but was simply unsure of which upper and lower limits to take.
I think you typed it ok enough. As I said earlier, 1/2r^2
might be misinterpreted as 1/(2r^2) by some, but, if anything, the former is correct. (It reminds my of the "priority by juxtaposition" argument in the old "48÷2(9+3)" debate. (But don't get me started on that old chestnut!)
I think most (if not all) posting in this thread know this to be the case.
My guesses are one of the following (for "he", read "he or she"):
a) sharks is winding us up by picking up on an ambiguously written integrand (although I believe it is correctly written) and following through with that to the erroneous solution, in which case he really shouldn't be "confirming" a result that he knows is definitely wrong - especially in a Homework thread;
b) sharks believes he is being genuine, but only by the fact that he has assumed that the given integrand is correct (although he has incorrectly misinterpreted it), in which case he really shouldn't be "confirming" a result that he does not know necessarily to be correct - especially in a Homework thread;
c) sharks genuinely got it wrong by actually believing his integrand was correct whether he'd read it in the OP or not, in which case he really shouldn't be "confirming" results that he definitely cannot know to be true, as they are not - especially in a Homework thread.
I really don't know if it's a or b or c.