spidey
- 213
- 0
is this correct?
∫(dx²/dy²) dx = dx/dy
∫(dx²/dy²) dx = dx/dy
The discussion revolves around the integration of acceleration to reconstruct velocity, exploring the relationships between derivatives and integrals in the context of calculus. Participants are examining the notation and mathematical expressions related to derivatives of position and velocity.
Several participants have provided insights into the integration of acceleration and its implications for velocity. There is an ongoing exploration of different approaches, including variable substitution and integration by parts. While some guidance has been offered, there remains a lack of consensus on the correct method to proceed with the integration.
Participants are navigating unconventional notation and potential misunderstandings about the relationships between acceleration, velocity, and their derivatives. The discussion reflects the complexities inherent in integrating functions related to motion.
CompuChip said:What do you mean by (dx^2/dy^2) ?
Is it the second derivative of x with respect to y? Is it the first derivative of x with respect to y, squared? Is x a function of y (this is a bit unconventional notation, then)
spidey said:is this correct?
∫(dx²/dy²) dx = dx/dy
Tac-Tics said:Suppose [tex]\frac{dx}{dy} = x + 1[/tex].
Then [tex]\frac{d^2x}{dy^2} = 1[/tex]
However, it is *not* true that [tex]\int 1 dx = x + 1[/tex]. As your calc teacher will say it, [tex]\int 1 dx = x + C[/tex] for some abuse of notation/constant C.
The problem with your statement is that the integral isn't the inverse of the derivative. Integrating a derivative of a function doesn't give you back the original function.
However, the reverse *is* true. Taking the derivative of an integral of a function DOES give you back the original function. This is the fundamental theorem of calculus: [tex]\frac{d}{dx}(\int f(x) dx) = f(x)[/tex]
(Note that I sort of disregarded your use of the second derivative, since it is just an added layer of confusion to this particular problem).
CompuChip said:Actually,
∫ a dt = dx/dt =: v
by precisely that the theorem mentioned by Tac-Tics: a = d/dt( dx/dt ) so integrating it gives the velocity dx/dt.
You might be able to rework the integral over x to an integral over t, by a variable substitution:
∫ a(x(t)) dx = ∫ a(t) v(t) dt = ∫ v'(t) v(t) dt
(try to work that out for yourself).
I am thinking that partial integration may help you forward in this problem, but I'm not quite sure... play around a bit
CompuChip said:Actually,
∫ a dt = dx/dt =: v
by precisely that the theorem mentioned by Tac-Tics: a = d/dt( dx/dt ) so integrating it gives the velocity dx/dt.
You might be able to rework the integral over x to an integral over t, by a variable substitution:
∫ a(x(t)) dx = ∫ a(t) v(t) dt = ∫ v'(t) v(t) dt
(try to work that out for yourself).
I am thinking that partial integration may help you forward in this problem, but I'm not quite sure... play around a bit
Tac-Tics said:Maybe my explanation was a little much for what you're trying to do (though it is important to understand it eventually too).
If you integrate acceleration, the function you get is something that looks a LOT like the function for velocity. In fact, if you know the velocity at any point in time, you can reconstruct the function for velocity entirely.