One dimensional integration that Mathematica cannot do

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evaluation of a specific one-dimensional integral using Mathematica, particularly focusing on the challenges faced when the integral involves certain parameters and conditions. Participants explore both computational and analytical approaches to the integral, which is improper at a boundary.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes an integral involving parameters a, b, c, and ε, which Mathematica struggles to evaluate, and requests others to test the computation on their machines.
  • Another participant notes that the integral is improper at the boundary x = a + b - c.
  • A participant mentions that removing the factor (a - x) from the denominator initially yielded a result, but reintroducing it complicated the computation significantly.
  • Some participants suggest that the condition ε < 0 may resolve the improper nature of the integral at the boundary.
  • One participant proposes that Taylor expanding the term (1/(a - x)) could be a potential approach, though it would not provide an exact solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the integral is complex and that the presence of the term (a - x) complicates the evaluation. However, there is no consensus on the best approach to resolve the integral or on the implications of the condition ε < 0.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the challenges of evaluating integrals with improper boundaries and the role of specific parameter conditions. There are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the implications of these conditions on the integral's evaluation.

CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87
I want to evaluate $$\int_{a+b-c}^s\,\text{d}x\, \frac{(-x+ab/c)^{\epsilon}}{(x+c-a-b)^{\epsilon+1} (a-x)},$$ where ##a,b,c,\epsilon## are numbers, and to be treated as constants in the integration. I put this into mathematica and an hour later it is still attempting to evaluate it so I aborted the calculation. I was just wondering if someone could put the following code into Mathematica and see if it is also takes a long time on their machine?

Integrate[(-x + a*b/c)^e/(x + c - a - b)^(e + 1)/(a - x), {x,
a + b - c, s}, Assumptions -> e < 0 && b < 0 && a > 0]

I tried to progress with the intergral analytically:
Partial fractions gave a rewriting of the form $$\frac{1}{c-b}\int_{a+b-c}^{s} \text{d}x\, \frac{(-x+ab/c)^{\epsilon}}{(x+c-a-b)^{\epsilon}} \left(\frac{1}{x+c-a-b} + \frac{1}{a-x}\right)$$ $$ = \frac{1}{c-b}\left(\int_{a+b-c}^{s} \text{d}x\, \frac{(-x+ab/c)^{\epsilon}}{(x+c-a-b)^{\epsilon+1}} + \int_{a+b-c}^{s} \text{d}x\, \frac{(-x+ab/c)^{\epsilon}}{(x+c-a-b)^{\epsilon}} \frac{1}{a-x}\right)$$ but this probably did not help.

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It is improper in ##x=a+b-c## ...
 
I evaluated it initially without the factor of (a-x) in the denominator and an answer came out fine. But then I realized I had missed this piece upon typing it into Mathematica and now it takes a long time to give me an answer. ##\epsilon < 0## solves the fact it is improper at the boundary I think. Can you try putting it into your machine and seeing if is also takes a long time?
 
yes ##\epsilon <0## solve this, I think the problem is that when you divide by ##\frac{1}{a-x}## the computation become more complex..., I tried with Mathematica but Wolfram told me false Assumptions ...
 
You can try Taylor expanding the term ##\frac{1}{a-x}## but obviously is not an exact solution ...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K