Integrating \int \frac{x}{sqrt{x+3}}dx: Simple Integration Methods Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter John O' Meara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 2K views
John O' Meara
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
Integrate [tex]\int \frac{x}{sqrt{x+3}}dx \\[/tex]
(i) I can integrate this by letting U^2=x+3 => [tex]u=\sqrt{x+3} \ \mbox{ so } \ x=u^2-3 \ \mbox{and } \ dx=2udu \ \mbox{then the integral = } \ \int\frac{(u^2-3)2u}{u}du \\[/tex]
[tex]\ =2(\frac{u^3}{3}-3u) + C \\ \ = \ \frac{2}{3}(u^2-9) + C \ = \ \frac{2}{3}(x-6)\sqrt{x+3} +C \\[/tex]
Or (ii) I can integrate above if I let u=x+3 => [tex]\ \frac{du}{dx}=1 \ \mbox{ therefore } \ du = dx \ \mbox{ and } \ x=u-3 \ \\[/tex]. [tex]\mbox{ then } = \ \int\frac{u-3}{u^{\frac{1}{2}} du \ = \ \int u^{\frac{1}{2}}du \ -\ 3 \int u^{\frac{-1}{2}} du \ = \ \frac{2}{3} u^{\frac{3}{2}} \ - \ 6u^{\frac{1}{2}} +C \ \\[/tex].[tex]\ = \ \frac{2}{3}(x+3)^{\frac{3}{2}} \ -6(x+3)^{\frac{1}{2}} + C\\[/tex]. Which is correct (i) or (ii), and why? Thanks a lot.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
So you are telling me that both substitutions are valid? That is answer (i) and (ii) are equal? It is a mis-print.
 
Indeed, both substitutions are valid. Sometimes there are several ways to come to a solution in doing integrals. One is often more preferable over the other due the length of the algebra involved. Practice is the only way to recognize the appropriate one. In your case both are equally usable.

The first solution (with a minor typo) can be rewritten as:

[tex]\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{x+3}\cdot (x-6)+C=\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{x+3}\cdot (x-9+3)+C[/tex]

Expanding this gives you the second solution, which is therefore proven to be the same.

Sometimes you need to adjust the integration constant, to show that two solutions are indeed the same, but not here.