Integrating sin^4(2x): An Alternative Method | No Reduction Formulas Required

  • Thread starter Thread starter ookt2c
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of sin^4(2x) without using reduction formulas. Participants are exploring various methods and expressing their thoughts on the feasibility of the task.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants suggest using integration by parts, while others express skepticism about the possibility of integrating without deriving reduction formulas. There are attempts to express sin^4(2x) in terms of cosines to facilitate integration.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing different perspectives on the integration approach. Some guidance has been offered regarding expressing the function in terms of cosines, but there is no consensus on the overall method or feasibility.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints of not using reduction formulas, which has led to questions about the necessity and implications of this restriction.

ookt2c
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


How do you integrate sin^4(2x) without the reduction formulas. seems impossible

Homework Equations



i think you have to use integration by parts?

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think you can. At least, not without essentially deriving the reduction formulas in the process (assuming you're referring to reduction formulas of Ssin^m(x) cos^j(x))
 
expressing sin^4(2x)=(sin^2(2x))^2=(1-cos^2(4x))/2, and then do the same for cos^2(4x)=(1+cos(8x))/2
i do not see why this would be impossible?
 
sutupidmath said:
expressing sin^4(2x)=(sin^2(2x))^2=(1-cos^2(4x))/2, and then do the same for cos^2(4x)=(1+cos(8x))/2
i do not see why this would be impossible?
The original post said "without the reduction formulas". I doubt there is any and don't really see why one would care.
 
HallsofIvy said:
The original post said "without the reduction formulas". I doubt there is any and don't really see why one would care.

Oh, sorry, i did not know that these are called "reduction formulas", my bad!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K