Difficult simplification for Arc length integral

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the length of a curve defined by the equation x = 3y^{4/3} - (3/32)y^{2/3} over the interval -64 ≤ y ≤ 64. Participants are exploring the integral for arc length and the challenges associated with simplifying the integrand.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the arc length formula but encounters difficulties in integrating the resulting expression. Some participants question the correctness of the differentiation used and suggest verifying the setup of the integral. Others discuss the algebraic simplification of the integrand and offer insights into factoring it into a perfect square.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, providing feedback and suggestions for simplification. There is recognition of the need to clarify the differentiation aspect and the correct application of formulas. Multiple interpretations of the integrand's simplification are being explored, but no consensus has been reached on the exact method to achieve the desired form.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of confusion regarding the use of dx and dy in the integral setup, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the context in which the formulas should be applied. Participants are also reflecting on the limitations of the provided formulas and their applicability to the problem at hand.

nicnicman
Messages
132
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find the length of the curve
x = 3 y^{4/3}-\frac{3}{32}y^{2/3}, \quad -64\le y\le 64

Homework Equations


Integral for arc length (L):
L = \int_a^b \sqrt{1 + (\frac{dy}{dx})^{2}} dx

The Attempt at a Solution


Using symmetry of the interval and the above integral for arc length I got
L = 2\int_0^{64} \sqrt{1 + (4y^{\frac{1}{3}-}\frac{1}{16y^{\frac{1}{3}}})^{2}} dy

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble integrating this beast. Using Wolfram Alpha as a last resort, I found the integrand can be simplified to this:
4y^{\frac{1}{3}}+\frac{1}{16y^{\frac{1}{3}}}
However, I can't see how Worlfram made this simplification. (A step-by-step solution was not available.)

Could someone show me how the the original integrand could be simplified to this form? After that I should be fine.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The expression 4y1/3 - (1/16)y-1/3 isn't dy/dx, it's dx/dy. So the differential in your expression for L should be dy rather than dx. But, OK, to answer your actual question:

The expression under the radical sign can be simplified if you square the parenthesized expression by the rules of high-school algebra. It comes out to 16y2/3 - 1/2 + (1/256)y-2/3, so when you add 1 to it, the -1/2 becomes a +1/2, and the square root is just the same as what was formerly in the parentheses...except now the minus is a plus.
 
Thanks for the reply.

Yeah I know the dx and dy are backwards...it's just the generic formula we were given. Sorry for any confusion.

I did expand the expression under the radical and came up with the same expansion you did, but I still could not see a good way to integrate it.

That's when I turned to Wolfram and found the simplification shown in the original post. However, I don't see how to get to that simplification.
 
Last edited:
nicnicman said:
Thanks for the reply.

Yeah I know the dx and dy are backwards...it's just the generic formula we were given. Sorry for any confusion.

I did expand the expression under the radical and came up with the same expansion you did, but I still could not see a good way to integrate it.

That's when I turned to Wolfram and found the simplification shown in the original post. However, I don't see how to get to that simplification.

Just follow az-lender's lead and factor 16y^(2/3) + 1/2 + (1/256)y^(-2/3) into a perfect square.
 
nicnicman said:
Thanks for the reply.

Yeah I know the dx and dy are backwards...it's just the generic formula we were given.
It's likely that you were given three formulas: one where y is a function of x, another where x is a function of y, and a third where x and y are functions of a parameter such as t. It's important to know which one to apply to a given situation - you can't just mix and match things.
nicnicman said:
Sorry for any confusion.

I did expand the expression under the radical and came up with the same expansion you did, but I still could not see a good way to integrate it.

That's when I turned to Wolfram and found the simplification shown in the original post. However, I don't see how to get to that simplification.
 
Okay thanks for the help everyone
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K