Evaluating Definite Integrals: A Comparison and Explanation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating definite integrals involving exponential and cosine functions, specifically comparing two different approaches to the integral of the form \(\int_{-\pi}^0 e^{jz\cos \theta}\cos(m\theta) d\theta\) and its relation to \(\int_0^{\pi} e^{jz\cos \theta}\cos(m\theta) d\theta\). Participants explore the implications of variable substitutions and the properties of the integrands.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss two different variable substitutions leading to seemingly contradictory results. Some express confusion about the validity of their calculations and seek clarification on the conditions under which the integrals might be equal or not.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the problem, with some participants asserting that both approaches yield correct results, while others question the assumptions leading to different outcomes. The discussion reflects a lack of consensus on the interpretation of the integrals and their equality.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention specific cases for \(m\) (like \(m=0\), \(m=1\), and \(m=3\)) to illustrate their points, and there is a reference to Bessel functions in the context of the integrals. The discussion also highlights the importance of understanding the implications of the integrands rather than just their forms.

  • #31
yungman said:
I finally got the answer from Math Forum by Mathman

v=\pi-u\;\Rightarrow \;u=\pi-v,\;du=-dv

\int_{0}^{\pi}e^{jx\cos (u)}\cos(mu)du=-\int_{\pi}^{0}e^{jx\cos (\pi-v)}\cos(m\pi-mv)dv=\int_{0}^{\pi}e^{-jx\cos (v)}(-1)^m\cos(mv)dv

\theta=v\;\Rightarrow \;\int_{0}^{\pi}e^{-jx\cos (v)}(-1)^m\cos(mv)dv=\int_{0}^{\pi}e^{-jx\cos (\theta)}(-1)^m\cos(m\theta)d\theta

This is what I am looking for, a step by step proof that the two change of variable give the same exact answer. I know there got to be a way to proof identity.
Your first post in this thread proved the identity, actually. :wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Mandelbroth said:
Your first post in this thread proved the identity, actually. :wink:

Yeh, hind sight show I was close! But I am not that good in math, still have problem twisting the substitution around every which way to see it.

It's one thing working through the class and textbooks, it's another thing to get into this Bessel function derivation that really twisting the substitution every which way! I am just glad I finally got my derivations for the Bessel functions needed for me to go back to my antenna theory. This and electromagnetics really take the calculus, ODE, PDE and numerical analysis through the ringer. Been stuck for two week in here struggling through this and I am only on chapter 5 of the antenna theory! One thing for sure, I will be a lot better off in math after this...and I don't know whether I am laughing or crying at this point!
 
  • #33
In another thread in which you asked about how to derive a different representation of bessel function,I told there that you should show it by yourself.The point is that only even m will contribute,all integrals involving odd m will vanish.For that you can use the expansion of cos[xcos(theta)].The thread is some below in this forum.
 
  • #34
andrien said:
The thread is some below in this forum.

What do you mean?
 
  • #35
yungman said:
What do you mean?
I mean the thread is some below in this section of the forum.Also if you will use expansion of Sin(xCosθ),you will find that only odd m contribute and the extra minus sign outside Sin(xCosθ) will do the job.Just show it.
 
  • #36
andrien said:
I mean the thread is some below in this section of the forum.Also if you will use expansion of Sin(xCosθ),you will find that only odd m contribute and the extra minus sign outside Sin(xCosθ) will do the job.Just show it.

What do you mean by some below in this section?
 
  • #38

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K