Evaluate the definite integral

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on evaluating the definite integral ∫[x/(9+4x)^(1/2)]dx from 0 to 18 using u-substitution. Participants emphasize the importance of changing all variables, including limits of integration, after making the substitution. One user initially struggles with large incorrect results due to not adjusting the limits, but later resolves the issue. Another suggests that it's not always necessary to change the limits if the antiderivative can be expressed back in terms of x. The conversation highlights the significance of careful substitution and integration techniques in solving definite integrals.
purdue2016
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Evaluate the definite integral from 0 to 18.
∫[x/(9+4x)^1/2]dx

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I know to use u-substitution and I set u = (9+4x)^1/2. I can't figure out where I'm messing up because I keep ending up with very large numbers which are incorrect.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My first move would be to simplify the surd with x = 9u/4. Seeing the (1+u)-1/2 that results, I would then use a trig substitution for u. tan2 or sinh2 will eliminate the surd.
 
purdue2016 said:

Homework Statement


Evaluate the definite integral from 0 to 18.
∫[x/(9+4x)^1/2]dx

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I know to use u-substitution and I set u = (9+4x)^1/2. I can't figure out where I'm messing up because I keep ending up with very large numbers which are incorrect.
Your substitution should work. Show us what you did.

When you make your substitution, make sure that you change everything. You shouldn't have x's and dx's in your integral after the substitution.
 
I finally got it using the substitution I mentioned. I think I was screwing up because I didn't change the limits of integration for the new variable. Thanks for the help.
 
haruspex said:
My first move would be to simplify the surd with x = 9u/4. Seeing the (1+u)-1/2 that results, I would then use a trig substitution for u. tan2 or sinh2 will eliminate the surd.
If the radicand were the sum or difference of squares, I would take this approach, but in this case a much simpler approach will work.
 
purdue2016 said:
I finally got it using the substitution I mentioned. I think I was screwing up because I didn't change the limits of integration for the new variable. Thanks for the help.

You don't necessarily need to change the limits of integration. If, after you have your antiderivative (as a function of u), you can undo the substitution to get the equivalent form in terms of x. At that point just plug in the limits of integration.

Schematically it's like this:
$$ \int_a^b f(x) dx = \int_{x = a}^b g(u)du = G(u)\vert_{x = a}^b = F(x)\vert_{x = a}^b = F(b) - F(a)$$

If you decide not to change the limits of integration, it's helpful to note that they are values of x by adding "x = ..." in the lower limit.
 
Last edited:
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 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K