- #1
threeder
- 27
- 0
integration by parts
I'm working through Apostol's Calculus. I have attached the problem. I need to derive the formula integrating by parts.
It is not a hard problem, but I can't seem to understand how on Earth the author came up with that expression.
I take f(x) = (a^2 - x^2)^n, so f'(x)=-2nx(a^2 - x^2)^(n-1).
Take g'(x)=1, so g(x)=x.
Plug the expressions in. We get another integral which could be easily solved with integration by substitution and I get the final expression of x(a^2 - x^2)^n - (a^2 - x^2)^n which does make sense if we check it by taking derivatives of both sides.
On the other hand, if I try to take the derivative of the given expression, I don't really get the initial result. So, am I missing something or what?
EDIT: OK, I've managed to see why his expression makes sense after all. but still, do not see how could I get there. Would my initial picks of f's and g' for integration by parts allow me to get there or should I pick something else? thanks!
I'm working through Apostol's Calculus. I have attached the problem. I need to derive the formula integrating by parts.
It is not a hard problem, but I can't seem to understand how on Earth the author came up with that expression.
I take f(x) = (a^2 - x^2)^n, so f'(x)=-2nx(a^2 - x^2)^(n-1).
Take g'(x)=1, so g(x)=x.
Plug the expressions in. We get another integral which could be easily solved with integration by substitution and I get the final expression of x(a^2 - x^2)^n - (a^2 - x^2)^n which does make sense if we check it by taking derivatives of both sides.
On the other hand, if I try to take the derivative of the given expression, I don't really get the initial result. So, am I missing something or what?
EDIT: OK, I've managed to see why his expression makes sense after all. but still, do not see how could I get there. Would my initial picks of f's and g' for integration by parts allow me to get there or should I pick something else? thanks!
Attachments
Last edited: