Solve Integral: e^(x)/(e^(2X) + 9)

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter foges
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
12 replies · 3K views
foges
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Hey, just did a test and have no clue about this question:

Integrate:

e^(x)/(e^(2X) + 9)

Really curious how this is done. Thanx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I thought that too at first, but then realized that the numerator is e^(x) and not e^(2x), which would have made it a lot simpler. had it been e^(2x) i could have used ln(f(x))
 
Do a change of variables e^x to z, this yields a standard integral of the arctangent.
 
Yeah i tried that on the test, but didnt get too far, probably cause i havnt worked too much with arctangents (arcsins or arccosins for that matter) in calculus.

I prety much put down (1/3)arctan(e^(x)/3), but it gave me the wrong answer (PS: it was the finite integral from 0 to ln(3), so i could test it on my calculator)
 
Well [tex]\int \frac{e^x}{(e^x)^2 +9} dx[/tex] is what makes the substitution u=e^x easier to see. du = e^x dx

That makes the integral [tex]\int \frac{1}{u^2+9} du[/tex] which is of the arctan form, but if you haven't learned that then use the substitution u= 3 tan theta.
 
Thanx,
Well my formula booklet says: integral of 1/(a^2+x^2) = (1/a)arctan(x/a) + c

Using that logic and substitution, i got: (1/3)arctan(e^(x)/3), which isn't right. what did i do wrong here?

Using e^x =3tan(theta) I am left with dx= 3sec^2(theta) d(theta), which turns out ugly
 
Forget about replacing u with e^x with respect to my suggested substitution for now.

[tex]\int \frac{1}{u^2+3^2} du = \frac{1}{3} \int \frac{1}{\sec^2 \theta} \cdot \sec^2 \theta d\theta = \frac{1}{3} \theta + C = \frac{1}{3} \arctan (u/3) + C = \frac{1}{3} \arctan (\frac{e^x}{3}) +C[/tex] which turns out the same as your formula booklet! that's because for solving that general integral, we use u=a tan theta!

Why in the world do you think that's not correct!
 
Last edited:
for two reasons, firstly because calculating the finite ingtegral from 0 to ln(3) i get a different answer than using that formula (TI-83 plus). Secondly, when graphing that equation and the original equation it doesn't look like the first derivative to me.

Maybe I am just screwed up and tried everything in the wrong mode or something. Using that formula, the answer will be in radians right?

Thanx for your time btw
 
When EVER we do calculus, everything is in Radians thanks :P

Now the answer I get is [itex]\pi/12 - 1/3 \arctan (1/3)[/itex], which turns out around 0.154549203. If that TI 83 plus is different, then I can finally be assured i know more than a calculator.
 
foges, when you say taking the finite integral from 0 to ln(3), you mean you take the integral from 0 to ln(3) of the original integral in your first post, then compare it to

[tex]\frac{1}{3}*(artcan(e^{ln(3)}/3) - arctan(e^0/3))[/tex]
 
Ok, just re did it on my calculator and i got that answer, so strange, maybe i subtracted arctan(0) or had it in the wrong mode or something. Anyways, thanks for the help.