Numerical Integration: Find x to 3 Decimal Points

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion focuses on solving the numerical integration problem defined by the equation \(2.37=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \int_{0}^{x} \sqrt{\frac{e^x}{e^x-1}}dx\). The calculated value of \(x\) is approximately 4.425, with a more precise result of \(x \approx 4.42501043622\) obtained using a TI-89 calculator. Users discuss the potential floating-point accuracy issues with the TI-89 and suggest using Mathematica for confirmation. An exact solution for \(x\) is derived as \(x = 2 \ln \dfrac{k^2+1}{2k}\) where \(k = e^{2.37\sqrt{6}/2}\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of numerical integration techniques
  • Familiarity with the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTOC)
  • Knowledge of exponential functions and logarithms
  • Experience with computational tools like Wolfram Alpha and TI-89
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore numerical integration methods in-depth, focusing on improper integrals
  • Learn how to use Mathematica for symbolic computation and verification
  • Study floating-point arithmetic and its implications in numerical calculations
  • Investigate the properties of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, engineering students, and anyone involved in numerical analysis or computational mathematics will benefit from this discussion.

Albert1
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
0
\[2.37=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \int_{0}^{x} \sqrt{\frac{e^x}{e^x-1}}dx\]

please find x to three decimal point
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Using technology and some guesswork, I find:

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\int_0^{4.425}\sqrt{\frac{e^t}{e^t-1}}\,dt=2.37$

$x=4.425$
 
I get x $\approx$ 4.428

may be your answer is more accurate
 
wolframalpha.com gave the result I cited as being exact, but my TI-89 gives:

$x\approx4.42501043622$
 
MarkFL said:
wolframalpha.com gave the result I cited as being exact, but my TI-89 gives:

$x\approx4.42501043622$
The TI is probably having floating-point accuracy problems - it's not exactly a trivial approximation - I doubt W|A is wrong. I would use Mathematica to confirm but I don't have it installed right now :(
 
W|A also says the value my TI-89 gave results in the same exact value as well. (Tmi)
 
Do you really want the upper limit and dummy variable (the integration variable) to both be $x$?
 
If the integration variable is in fact $t$ (like MarkFL notes), then we can solve exactly for $x$ giving

$x = 2 \ln \dfrac{k^2+1}{2k}$ where $k = e^{2.37\sqrt{6}/2}$.
 
Jester said:
If the integration variable is in fact $t$ (like MarkFL notes), then we can solve exactly for $x$ giving

$x = 2 \ln \dfrac{k^2+1}{2k}$ where $k = e^{2.37\sqrt{6}/2}$.

Nice! :cool:

Did you find this by directly computing the improper integral, or did you exploit the FTOC in some other way?
 
  • #10
MarkFL said:
Nice! :cool:

Did you find this by directly computing the improper integral, or did you exploit the FTOC in some other way?
I integrated directly. Once you let $u = e^{t/2}$, you get an integral very manageable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K