Did I Solve the Integral Test Correctly for This Question?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating the improper integral \(\int_{0}^{\infty} te^{-at}dt\) for \(a > 0\). Participants are exploring the convergence of the integral and the correctness of the original poster's solution, which claims it converges to \(1/a^2\).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the method of taking limits as \(b\) approaches infinity and the application of L'Hôpital's rule. There are questions about the interpretation of the exponential function and the steps involved in evaluating the limit.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing guidance on how to approach the limit and clarifying notation. There is an emphasis on reviewing the original poster's work to identify potential mistakes, but no consensus has been reached regarding the correctness of the solution.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion over notation and the application of logarithmic properties in the limit evaluation. The original poster mentions difficulties with the recursive limit and the nature of the indeterminate form encountered.

QuarkCharmer
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Took a test today, one question I am not sure I got right.

[itex]\int_{0}^{\infty} te^{-at}dt[/itex], when a>0

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution



I set let infinity be b, then took the limit as b went to infinity of the integral with new bounds from 0 to b. My solution claimed that it converges to 1/a^2. Is this correct or should I expect to miss that question?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
QuarkCharmer said:

Homework Statement


Took a test today, one question I am not sure I got right.

[itex]\int_{0}^{\infty} te^{-at}dt[/itex], when a>0

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution



I set let infinity be b, then took the limit as b went to infinity of the integral with new bounds from 0 to b. My solution claimed that it converges to 1/a^2. Is this correct or should I expect to miss that question?

List your steps and we can tell you if you made a mistake.
 
Ok, I'll take that as an "it's incorrect".

I'll redo the problem now and post it here in a little while.
 
QuarkCharmer said:
Ok, I'll take that as an "it's incorrect".

I'll redo the problem now and post it here in a little while.

I'm not saying that. The onus is on you to show your work so we can see what you did and if your method/answer is correct.
 
Last edited:
It's no problem. I just got home so I will redo it, I made sure to memorize the question after I turned it in because it was giving me a hard time with it's recursive limit.

2dtty77.jpg


I keep on L'hopitaling, and it keeps on repeating! Finally I somehow worked it out to tend towards zero, so the solution was that it converges to [itex]\frac{1}{a^{2}}[/itex]. Unless I made another mistake that is, and provided, that limit actually does tend to zero. I think my logic was that numerator went to zero, and the denominator went to zero, so really it didn't matter if it was a type o/o indeterminate, I believe that it what I was thinking anyway.

Here is the limit that I don't know how to solve.
[tex]lim_{b \to \infty} \frac{be^{-ab}}{-a}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
The only part you need to care about is limit b->inf b*exp(-ab). Take the log. So you've got log(b)-ab. Factor it into b*(log(b)/b-a). Use l'Hopital to show limit log(b)/b goes to zero. So you are left with b*(-a) since a>0. Now goes to -infinity, yes? If log goes to -infinity then b*exp(-ab) goes to zero. Still ok?
 
Dick said:
The only part you need to care about is limit b->inf b*exp(-ab)...

But it's [itex]lim_{b \to \infty}be^{-ab}[/itex] ?
 
QuarkCharmer said:
But it's [itex]lim_{b \to \infty}be^{-ab}[/itex] ?

I mean exp(-ab) to be e^(-ab). Not sure what the question is? Sorry about the failure to correctly TeX things up.
 
I read that as [itex]b^{-ab}[/itex], I didn't know that pxp(m) means p^m, sorry.

I don't understand what you mean when you say to take the log? It looks like you just take the log of the numerator?
 
  • #10
QuarkCharmer said:
I read that as [itex]b^{-ab}[/itex], I didn't know that pxp(m) means p^m, sorry.

I don't understand what you mean when you say to take the log? It looks like you just take the log of the numerator?

I was just writing exp(x) instead of e^x. Don't worry if you haven't seen it before. Yes, you can just work with the numerator. The denominator is just a constant.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K