My calculator's integration seems wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter gummz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a discrepancy in the results of an integral calculation using different methods. The integral in question is x^2 + xy/2, evaluated from 0 to x with respect to y. While Wolfram Alpha provides a specific result, the TI-nspire cx CAS calculator yields a different expression: x*(2x^2 + xy)/2. The difference arises from how the calculator interprets the term "xy." It appears that the calculator treated "xy" as a constant rather than a variable multiplication, leading to an unexpected outcome. Proper input, including the use of multiplication symbols, is crucial for accurate results in such calculations.
Computer science news on Phys.org
did you enter the right thing into your calculator with brackets in the right place, etc? I don't know how that y got left behind, you know your calculator better than I do.I got the same thing wolfram did.
 
gummz said:
This is the integral: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate+x^2+xy/2+from+0+to+x+with+respect+to+y

But my calculator (TI-nspire cx CAS) gets this:

x*(2x^2+xy)/2

Any idea why this is?
It looks like the integration done by your calculator used some integration variable other than x or y .

Please state in the body of your post the integral you are trying to evaluate.
 
Did you put a multiplication symbol, "*", in the middle of "xy"?. It seems that your calculator treated "xy" as the name of a single constant. Thus, your calculator integrated the constant "xy" and got y*xy, After evaluating at the limits, this becomes x*xy.
 
That's it! Thank you so much George.
 
A new phenomenon is AI-generated news videos pretending to be by well-known professors Jeffery Sachs and John Mearsheimer. The amazing thing is that they both seem very tolerant of this. Youtube will block these if they request it but this has been going on for months and such blocks never seem to happen. The other surprise is that while they may be visually ugly or even grotesque the news analysis is quite good. If given the sound alone I don't believe I could tell it from the real...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
23K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K