Simple Integration Orthogonal Sin

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the integral function I(m,n) defined as the integral from 0 to 1 of sin(m*pi*x)*sin(n*pi*x) over dx. The analysis confirms that I(n,n) equals 1/2, while I(m,n) equals zero when m is not equal to ±n. This conclusion is derived through the application of trigonometric identities and integration techniques, specifically partial integration. The discussion highlights a gap in J. Farlow's "Partial Differential Equations for Scientists and Engineers," where the negative sign in the integral calculation is overlooked.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of trigonometric identities, specifically sin(x)sin(y)
  • Familiarity with definite integrals and their properties
  • Knowledge of partial integration techniques
  • Basic concepts of orthogonal functions in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of orthogonal functions in Fourier series
  • Learn advanced integration techniques, focusing on partial integration
  • Explore the implications of trigonometric identities in integral calculus
  • Review J. Farlow's "Partial Differential Equations for Scientists and Engineers" for deeper insights
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineering students interested in integral calculus and orthogonal functions, particularly those studying partial differential equations.

Omega0
Messages
215
Reaction score
52
Hi,

take the function

I(m,n) = Integral from 0 to 1 of sin(m*pi*x)*sin(n*pi*x) over dx

depending from n and m, being +-1, +-2, and so on.
If I use sin(x)sin(y)=1/2(cos(x-y)-cos(x+y)) I get sin^2(n*pi*x)=1/2-1/2cos(2n*pi*x)

or I(n,n)=1/2

because the integral of cosine over full periods is zero.

Well, the integral for n not equal to m is zero (easy to see, sin is zero for n*pi).

Now let's integrate via partial integration without knowledge of formulas between
periodic functions.

After two integrations I get

I(m,n) = (m/n)^2 I(m,n)

which means that if the integration is correct

1. m=+-n or
2. I(m,n)=0


You can choose m and n independently from each other. This means
that I(m,n)=0 is proven for m not equal +-n.

This is interesting from a point that for example J. Farlow in "Partial Differential Equations
for Scientists and Engineers" does not mention the negative sign. He completely skips this
calculation.

This is an indirect prove. Is it correct?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that is correct.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K