Can Integration be Simplified through Factorisation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter r_maths
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification of integration through factorization, specifically involving substitutions and the relationships between variables in the context of integration bounds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss substitution methods and the implications of defining variables such as \( k \) and \( p \). Questions arise regarding the validity of assumptions made about the bounds of integration and the resulting expressions.

Discussion Status

The conversation includes various attempts to clarify the relationships between \( k \) and \( p \), with some participants expressing confusion about how to proceed after substitutions. There is acknowledgment of potential extraneous solutions and the importance of integration bounds, indicating a productive exploration of the problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the implications of their assumptions regarding the values of \( k \) and the bounds of integration, which may affect the outcomes of their calculations. The discussion reflects a learning environment where participants are encouraged to question their reasoning and explore different interpretations.

r_maths
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1393/graph005tm7.png

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/2026/graph006td1.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just do the substitution.

in part b, let [itex]k^3 = \rho ^2[/itex]

Solve the resulting quadratic.
 
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/7201/graph007pp4.png

? :S
 
Last edited by a moderator:
k^3 = p^2 implies k^(3/2) = p.
 
I see now, so silly. Thanks
 
Still cannot get answer.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7294/graph008qz9.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You've gotten "p", now you have to find "k".
 
How is that going to lead me to the answer? :redface:
If I substitute "p" back to "k". I don't see how I can get 0.44
 
What is an expression for k in terms of p?

And you'll get an extraneous solution, but which one is right will be fairly clear when you get them. Look at bounds of your integration. Then look at the k's you get.
 
  • #10
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5615/graph009um6.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
r maths said:
[tex]k=p^{\frac{3}{2}}[/tex]
so
[tex]p= k^{\frac{3}{2}}[/tex]
Do you see an error here?
 
  • #12
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/2865/graph011ux7.png

I hope...


Mystic998 said:
And you'll get an extraneous solution, but which one is right will be fairly clear when you get them. Look at bounds of your integration. Then look at the k's you get.

I don't quite understand, how I'm I to know 0.29 instead of 1.71 was to be used?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
What is 1.79^(2/3)? Why is it that k clearly can't take on that value?
 
  • #14
Because of: http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/6338/graph012xj9.png ?[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
You've pretty much got the right idea. When you split the integral from 0 to 1 into an integral from 0 to k and an integral from k to 1, you tacitly assumed that k was between 0 and 1. Otherwise, what you did wouldn't be valid.
 
  • #16
Ok, thanks Mystic998 and everyone else who helped out.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K