Reparamterizing, I think i got the answer but whats up with the t = 0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mr_coffee
  • Start date Start date
mr_coffee
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone, Did i do this all right? I don't get what the point of this part is...
THe directions say, Reparameterize the curve r(t) which is listed on my image. With respect to arc elnth measured from the point (1,0,1) in the direction of incresing t. Well if u plug in t = 0, u will get the point (1,0,1), so what>? to make the problem correct, do i just have to note that somewhere? Here is my work and the final answer, is that acceptable? i can't see if I'm right or not and its just for studying for an exam. Thanks.
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/775217/0/nouser_775/T0_-1_775217.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
mr_coffee said:
Hello everyone, Did i do this all right? I don't get what the point of this part is...
THe directions say, Reparameterize the curve r(t) which is listed on my image. With respect to arc elnth measured from the point (1,0,1) in the direction of incresing t. Well if u plug in t = 0, u will get the point (1,0,1), so what>? to make the problem correct, do i just have to note that somewhere? Here is my work and the final answer, is that acceptable? i can't see if I'm right or not and its just for studying for an exam. Thanks.
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/775217/0/nouser_775/T0_-1_775217.jpg
I'm curious why you wrote:

s(t)=\int_0^t\sqrt{2}e^{t}\,du

Did you mean dt? If so, then it should equal \sqrt{2}\left(e^t-1\right).

Alex
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yeah my bad, sorry! hm..how did u get e^t-1? if sqrt{2} is a constant, can't u just bring it out? and get... sqrt(2)\inte^t? and isn't the integral of e^t just e^t?
 
mr_coffee said:
Oh yeah my bad, sorry! hm..how did u get e^t-1? if sqrt{2} is a constant, can't u just bring it out? and get... sqrt(2)\inte^t? and isn't the integral of e^t just e^t?
Yes, but remember that you are integrating from u=0 to u=t. What is the value of e0? It isn't 0 like you assumed in your work :smile:

Alex
 
ohh, t hanks again alex for the help...
so i'd get t = ln|s/sqrt(2) + 1|; do u know where the t = 0 comes in? or do i just state, t = 0?
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top