Squaring an Integral: Deriving ∫e-x2 = √(π/4) | Physics Forums

  • Thread starter Thread starter weeksy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
weeksy
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Well iv been looking around for a similar problem and found the use of the following equation. what I would like to know is if the following equation is actually correct? I believe it may be a extension of the Fubini's theorem but can't find a reference or derivation on the net. any help would be great thanks

I=∫0 e-x2
Show I=sqrt(pi/4) by first evaluating I^2

Homework Equations



[∫f(x) dx]^2 = ∫∫f(x)f(y) dxdy ?

link- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=243670

The Attempt at a Solution



I2=∫∫e-2x2dxdy?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I2=∫∫exp(-2x2)dxdy is incorrect, where is y except in its differential?
 
When you multiply two integrals together, their arguments are different (even though initially you use same letter for both): use x for one and y for the other.
 
ok so we would have I^2 = ∫∫e-x^2.y^2 dxdy

i would love to know where this rule comes from, seems very weird that we can just introduce a function dependent only on x as f(x,y).
and how do we know which order the dxdy goes?
 
weeksy said:
i would love to know where this rule comes from, seems very weird that we can just introduce a function dependent only on x as f(x,y).
and how do we know which order the dxdy goes?

You have number I that happens to be an integral of some f(x). You might as well look at it as the integral of f(y). You can multiply those, and you can treat them as a double integral - in any order - because their variables are independent.
 
weeksy said:
ok so we would have I^2 = ∫∫e-x^2.y^2 dxdy

i would love to know where this rule comes from, seems very weird that we can just introduce a function dependent only on x as f(x,y).
and how do we know which order the dxdy goes?

You're misunderstanding something here...

I^2 = \int e^{-x^2} dx \int e^{-y^2} dy = \int e^{-x^2 - y^2} dx dy

This is basically a special case of Fubini where f(x,y) = g(x) h(y), if that helps your thinking.
 
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