Algebraic manipulation for easier integration

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on integrating the function x^2/(1+x^2) from 0 to 1 and explores algebraic manipulation as an alternative to trigonometric substitution. One participant suggests dividing the numerator and denominator by x^2 to simplify the integral, leading to a form that appears easier to integrate. However, others point out that this manipulation overlooks the "+1" in the denominator, making it invalid. A more effective approach is proposed, breaking the integral into simpler components. The conversation emphasizes the importance of verifying algebraic identities through numerical examples.
stmbs02
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am trying to integrate x^2/(1+x^2 ) from 0 to 1.

The Attempt at a Solution



We recently worked on trig substitutions in class, but, rather than substituting x for tan(theta) I think there may be an easier way via algebraic manipulation. If I divide both numerator and denominator by the highest power of X in the denominator (x^2), then I get back out

1/(1/x^2 +1)

which is equal to x^2/2.

Now, I can easily integrate 1/2 x^2 without trig substitution.

My main question is: Is this a viable method for simplifying the integral, or must I go through trig substitution?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think what you did made it simpler, but here is what I'd do


\int_0 ^{1} \frac{x^2}{x^2+1}dx = \int_0 ^{1} \frac{x^2+1-1}{x^2+1}dx = \int_0 ^{1} \left( 1- \frac{1}{x^2+1} \right)dx
 
stmbs02 said:
1/(1/x^2 +1)

which is equal to x^2/2.
:confused:
 
Hurkyl said:
:confused:

Doesn't it? Algebra is not exactly my strong suit. 1/(1/x^2) is x^2 (the denominator of the denominator is the numerator), right?
 
stmbs02 said:
1/(1/x^2) is x^2 (the denominator of the denominator is the numerator), right?
This is true, but not relevant to the problem -- there's a "+1" in there, and you can't just ignore it.

This is true:
\frac{1}{\frac{1}{q}} = q

but you're working with
\frac{1}{\frac{1}{q} + r}

which is not of the form of the left hand side.


Incidentally, if you're ever unsure about an algebraic identity, you should do a sanity check -- try plugging in some numbers. If your algebraic manipulation is valid, then plugging in numbers should give equal results.

(Though beware -- getting equal results doesn't prove your manipulation is valid)
 
Thanks for the help. rock.freak667, I think what you did makes a lot more sense than what I did.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K