Integration (Partial Fractions)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of the function \(\int \frac{x^2 + 2x}{x^3 + 3x^2 + 4} dx\), specifically exploring the use of partial fractions versus substitution methods in solving the integral.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the feasibility of using partial fractions based on the factorability of the denominator. Some express uncertainty about the necessity of partial fractions given the apparent suitability of substitution. Others question the implications of the degree of the numerator and denominator in relation to integration techniques.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with various perspectives on the use of partial fractions versus substitution. Some participants have offered insights into the conditions under which partial fractions may or may not be applicable, while others highlight the effectiveness of substitution in this particular case.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the complexity involved in factoring the denominator, with some participants suggesting that it may involve radicals, which could complicate the use of partial fractions. Additionally, the original poster's intent to explore partial fractions despite recognizing substitution as a viable method is noted.

frozen7
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
[tex]\int \frac{x^2 + 2x}{x^3 + 3x^2 + 4} dx[/tex]

I can solve it directly by using substitution . But how to solve it by using partial fraction? Is it possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can evaluate the integral using partial fractions if you can factor the polynomial in the denominator.
 
I can't factor out the denominator of this function, that means this question can't be solved by using partial fraction?
 
frozen7 said:
I can't factor out the denominator of this function, that means this question can't be solved by using partial fraction?
Not necessarily, you could still factor it but then it would involve radicals and that's usually not very 'neat'. I think you should just praise yourself lucky that the substitution works well here, with the nominator being the denominator's derivative (up to a factor 3) :smile:
 
I don't see any reason to use partial fractions when this looks like a cookie cutter substitution problem.
 
Mindscrape said:
I don't see any reason to use partial fractions when this looks like a cookie cutter substitution problem.

I know the problem can be solved by substitution. I am just asking whether it can be solved by using partial fraction or not.
 
I don't see why this would need partial fractions, the bottom is one degree higher than the top. That hints towards log laws...
 
Tx said:
I don't see why this would need partial fractions, the bottom is one degree higher than the top. That hints towards log laws...
?
Are you sure?
This integral:
[tex]\int \frac{x ^ 2}{x ^ 3 + x ^ 2 - x - 1} dx[/tex]
also has the denominator that is 1 degree higher than the numerator, can it be solve by log laws, without using partial-fraction?
 
Touche.
That one is a classic instance of partial fractions. However, this one is a log law one cause the number of terms is in preportion with the original number.
 
  • #10
Tx said:
...the number of terms is in preportion with the original number.

What do you mean by this?

More is needed than just degrees or the number of terms being 'correct' for it to work out as a log. The original question is in the form K*P'(x)/P(x), where K is a constant, so it's a logarithmic derivative.

The denominator of the original question can be factored as TD says, look up the cubic formula. It's gross though, and worth looking at to see how 'lucky' you were that this question works out in a nicer way.
 
  • #11
You are right, absolutely. This question should use partial fractions, however, The derivative was on the top so I just said that it looks like a log integral. I apologise if what I was saying was utter garbage.

What I meant was that the top was very similar to the derivative of the bottom. I just worded it incorrectly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K