Integration Work Check: Solving for e^(-nx) x^(s-oo-2) dx

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rman144
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evaluation of the integral S [e^(-nx)][x^(s-∞-2)] dx, with limits from x=1 to x=infinity, where n is a real integer greater than or equal to 1 and 0

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks for confirmation on the correctness of the integral and proposes that since the integral vanishes for all x in the interval except at x=1, they can evaluate e^(-nx) at x=1, simplifying the integral.
  • Another participant expresses confusion over the notation "s-∞-2," questioning its meaning and whether it represents a limit.
  • A later reply clarifies the notation and reiterates the idea of "binding" e^(-nx) to a constant value based on its behavior in the specified interval, suggesting that this could help in establishing convergence.
  • Participants discuss the implications of evaluating the integral at specific points and the conditions under which such simplifications might be valid.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the interpretation of the notation or the validity of the proposed simplifications. Multiple viewpoints exist regarding the meaning of "s-∞-2" and the approach to evaluating the integral.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the notation and the assumptions involved in the proposed simplifications. The discussion remains focused on the convergence of the integral without resolving the mathematical steps involved.

rman144
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Can someone confirm that the following is correct:

S [e^(-nx) ][x^(s-oo-2)] dx , limits from x=1 to x=infinity, n is some real integer>=1, and 0<Re(s)<1

What I want to know is, because the equation vanishes for all "x" in the interval x=1 to x=infinity, excluding x=1, can I just bind (e^(-nx)) to e^(-n(1)), leaving:

S [e^(-nx) ][x^(s-oo-2)] dx=(e^(-n))*S [x^(s-oo-2)] dx

Any help would be much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
1. There are symbols in that my webreader cannot read.
2. I don't know what "s-∞-2" could possibly mean.
3. I don't know what "bind (e^(-nx)) to e^(-n(1))" means.
 
Sorry about the confusion:

First, the s-oo-2 is read as "s" (the variable s) minus infinity minus 2.

Next, when I say bind it to a constant, I mean:

Say you have:

S f(x)*g(x) dx, limits from x=x1 to x=x2

Now if you know that the equation f(x) on the interval x1 to x2 is at most f(k1) and at least f(k2), then the integral:

S f(x)*g(x) dx

Will have a maximum absolute value of:

abs( S f(k1)*g(x) dx )

And a minimum of:

abs( S f(k2)*g(x) dx)

Now what I'm asking is, because within my original equation, the only value in the interval that doesn't go to zero is when x=1, as a result, can I repeat the above process for e^(-nx) and "bind" the value to the interval:

e^-n<=e^(-nx)<=e^-n

Which implies:

e^(-nx)=e^(-n)


I'm not trying to solve the integral; I'm merely attempting to establish whether or not it converges, and if so, how small an interval can I confine the possible solution of the actual integral to.
 
Last edited:
rman144 said:
Sorry about the confusion:

First, the s-oo-2 is read as "s" (the variable s) minus infinity minus 2.
Yes, even I could read[/i] it that way but what does it MEAN? Since "infinity" is not a number, that makes no sense to me. Is it intended as a limit? And if so what could "infinity minus 2" mean?

Next, when I say bind it to a constant, I mean:

Say you have:

S f(x)*g(x) dx, limits from x=x1 to x=x2

Now if you know that the equation f(x) on the interval x1 to x2 is at most f(k1) and at least f(k2), then the integral:

S f(x)*g(x) dx

Will have a maximum absolute value of:

abs( S f(k1)*g(x) dx )

And a minimum of:

abs( S f(k2)*g(x) dx)

Now what I'm asking is, because within my original equation, the only value in the interval that doesn't go to zero is when x=1, as a result, can I repeat the above process for e^(-nx) and "bind" the value to the interval:

e^-n<=e^(-nx)<=e^-n

Which implies:

e^(-nx)=e^(-n)


I'm not trying to solve the integral; I'm merely attempting to establish whether or not it converges, and if so, how small an interval can I confine the possible solution of the actual integral to.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K