Struggling with Integration by Parts? Try a New Approach with Secant Functions!

AI Thread Summary
Integration by parts can be challenging, especially with secant functions. While it's common to use integration by parts for odd powers of sec(x), integrating sec(x) itself typically doesn't require this method. Instead, multiplying by a form of one can simplify the integral, leading to a u-substitution or other techniques like using the half-angle substitution. Alternative methods, such as partial fractions, can also be applied for a more complex approach. Understanding these strategies can make tackling integration by parts more manageable.
Ginny Mac
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Integration by parts...

I just started Calc. II and though I struggle a bit, it's fascinating. I have been fooling with a problem lately...one of those standard problems that professors like to assign, and it usually appears in calculus texts:

Have ya'll ever done integration by parts with secx? A friend of mine worked it out for me, but I have had trouble reaching the solution on my own. Just thought I'd throw it out there in case ya'll hadn't run into it! It is a fun kind of headache.

-Gin
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Ginny,

I'm scooting this over to our Homework section.

Now, on to your question: Are you talking about integrands that contain powers of \sec(x), or just the \sec(x) itself? The reason I'm asking is that it is normal to integrate odd powers greater than 1 of the secant function by parts, but not so normal to integrate the secant function itself by parts.
 
That integral doesn't really require integration by parts... You have to mulitply by a form of one, which can be hard to see.

\int \sec{x}dx= \int \sec(x)*\frac{\sec(x)+\tan(x)}{\sec(x)+\tan(x)}dx

You can do a u-substitution from there.
 
Or use the substitution t = \tan \left( {x/2} \right)
 
Or \sec x = \frac{1}{{\cos x}}\left( {\frac{{\cos x}}{{\cos x}}} \right) = \frac{{\cos x}}{{\cos ^2 x}} = \frac{{\cos x}}{{1 - \sin ^2 x}} and use substitution + partial fractions. It's one of the longer ways of doing it but it is an alternative. :biggrin:
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top