Calculators TI 89 Integral seems wrong.... What am I missing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jdcirbo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Click For Summary
The TI 89 Platinum is returning ln(abs(cos(x))/abs(sin(x)-1)) when calculating the integral of sec(x)dx, which is incorrect as it should yield ln(abs(tan(x)+sec(x))) or ln(abs(sin(x)+1)/abs(cos(x))). When evaluating at x=0, the calculator initially produced a "non-real result," which is unexpected since the output should be 0. This inconsistency raises questions about whether the issue stems from a computation error or the syntax used in TI Basic for integral calculations. An update indicates that the calculator later returned 0 for x=0, suggesting potential fluctuations in performance or battery-related issues affecting calculations.
jdcirbo
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
My TI 89 Platinum is returning ln(abs(cos(x))/abs(sin(x)-1)) for integral sec(x)dx. It's supposed to return ln(abs(tan(x)+sec(x)) or ln(abs(sin(x)+1)/abs(cos(x))). If you enter x=0, you get 'undefined' the way my TI 89 is doing it. It's supposed to return 0. Is this a computation error or something with the syntax of how TI Basic computes integrals?
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
Ln(abs(sin(x)+1)/abs(cos(x))) = Ln(abs(cos(x))/abs(sin(x)-1))
 
And abs sin / abs cos = abs tan
 
Baluncore said:
Ln(abs(sin(x)+1)/abs(cos(x))) = Ln(abs(cos(x))/abs(sin(x)-1))
I don't understand why I'm getting a "non-real result" from the calculation when I enter x=0. Why is that occurring? It should be the same regardless of which form it's written in.
 
jdcirbo said:
My TI 89 Platinum is returning ln(abs(cos(x))/abs(sin(x)-1)) for integral sec(x)dx. It's supposed to return ln(abs(tan(x)+sec(x)) or ln(abs(sin(x)+1)/abs(cos(x))). If you enter x=0, you get 'undefined' the way my TI 89 is doing it. It's supposed to return 0. Is this a computation error or something with the syntax of how TI Basic computes integrals?
UPDATE: Just to make me look like a liar... Now my TI 89 is returning 0 for x=0... ? It was returning "Non-real result" before.
 
LLMs and AIs have a bad reputation at PF, and I share this opinion. I have seen too much nonsense they produced, and too many "independent researchers" who weren't so independent after all, since they used them. And then there is a simple question: If we had to check their results anyway, why would we use them in the first place? In fact, their use is forbidden by the rules. I tend to interpret the reason for this rule because nobody wants to talk to a machine via PF. Those who want to can...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K