B Why Do Different Methods Yield Different Results for ∫0 T sin²(ωt) dt?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Const@ntine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the integration of sin²(ωt) over the interval from 0 to T, with participants comparing results from a physics textbook and online tools like Wolfram and Cymath. The textbook presents a formula that yields a result of 1/2, while the alternative method discussed leads to a different expression that also simplifies to 1/2. The key point of contention is whether the textbook's approach omits a crucial factor in the integration process. Ultimately, it is confirmed that the alternative method is correct due to the proper application of trigonometric identities and integration techniques. The conversation highlights the importance of careful integration and verification of results in mathematical proofs.
Const@ntine
Messages
285
Reaction score
18
Hi! I came across a proof in my physics textbook (amperage=wattage/area), and it contained this integration: ∫0 T sin2(ωt) dt

The whole thing: 1/T∫0 T sin2(ωt) dt = 1/T(t/2 + sin2ωt/2ω)|T 0 = 1/2

I didn't remember how to integrate that, so I went back to check my notes, and look at it at Wolfram or some other sites. But the problem is, I get different results. Same for the other sites I checked.

Wolfram: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate+sin^2(ω*t)

Cymath (it's a simpler form, but the theory is the same): https://www.cymath.com/answer?q=int(sin(x)^2,x)

So I went to try my hand at it:

0 T sin2(ωt) dt

u = ωt <=> du = ωdt
sin2(x) = 1/2 - cos(2x)/2

1/ω∫0 T 1/2 - cos2u/2 du = 1/ω [ ∫0 T1/2 du - ∫0 T cos2u/2 du]

We break that into two integrals:

1/ω∫0 T1/2 du = 1/ω (u/2)|T 0 = 1/ω (ωt/2)|T 0 = T/2

1/ω∫0 T cos2u/2 du

k = 2u <=> dk = 2du

1/ω∫0 T cosk/4 dk = 1/4ω∫0 T cosk dk = 1/4ω(sink)|T 0 = 1/4ω(sin2u)|T 0 = 1/4ω(sin2ωt)|T 0 = sin(2ωT)/4ω

But, ω = 2π/T so sin(2ωT)/4ω = 0

In the end, we have: 1/T*(T/2 - 0) = 1/2

The end result is the same, but I wonder which version is correct:

Book: 1/T∫0 T sin2(ωt) dt = 1/T(t/2 + sin2ωt/2ω)|T 0

Other: 1/T∫0 T sin2(ωt) dt = 1/T(t/2 - sin2ωt/4ω)|T 0

Any help is appreciated!

PS: I know that I also have to change the T & 0 when changing the integrating factor (t, then u, then k), but it's been a few years since I've done that, and have forgotten how exactly, so I justkept them the same and reverted the u & k back to their original t-related forms when the time came to find the end result.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
"Other" is correct, as you have shown by your integration. There is a factor of 1/2 that comes from sin2x = 1/2(1-cos2x), and another that comes from ∫-cos2xdx = (sin2x)/2. The book seems to have forgotten one of these.
 
  • Like
Likes Const@ntine
mjc123 said:
"Other" is correct, as you have shown by your integration. There is a factor of 1/2 that comes from sin2x = 1/2(1-cos2x), and another that comes from ∫-cos2xdx = (sin2x)/2. The book seems to have forgotten one of these.
Thanks for the confirmation!
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top