U substitution and partial integration

James889
Messages
190
Reaction score
1
Hey,

I need to evaluate \int_{1}^{5}(6-2x)\sqrt{5-x}dx

So.
\tex{Let ~~u} = 6-2x~~ \tex{then}~~ du = 2

\frac{1}{2}~du = dx
New limits:
x = 5 \longrightarrow u = -4
x = 1 \longrightarrow u = 4

now, -\frac{1}{2}\int^{4}_{-4} u*\sqrt{5-x}

and now for the partial integration.

u \sqrt{5-x}~~ - \int 1\times \sqrt{5-x} = u \sqrt{5-x} ~~-\frac{2}{3}(5-x)^{3/2}

Substituting in my limits of integration:
(6-2*4) \times \sqrt{5-4} ~~-\frac{2}{3}(5-4)^{3/2} - (6-2*(-4)) \times \sqrt{5-(-4)} ~~-\frac{2}{3}(5-(-4))^{3/2} == \tex{wrong!}

what is it that I am doing wrong?
//James
 
Physics news on Phys.org
James889 said:
what is it that I am doing wrong?
//James

Once you've established a relation between u and x, partial integration is not possible (since you are assuming one is constant as the other varies, contradicting the established relation).

Since the original integrand is explicit in x and you're changing into the context of u, you need to change the entire integral into the context of u (nothing in x left behind).

My suggestion is to use the substitution u = 5 - x and go from there. You'll end up with an integrand involving fractional powers of u. The solution should come out to 64/15.

--Elucidus
 
You have two mistakes in your substitution, one of them being a sign error.
{Let ~~u} = 6-2x~~ \tex{then}~~ du = 2
With this substitution du = - 2dx

Also, I would split the integral into two integrals, like so:
\int_{1}^{5}(6-2x)\sqrt{5-x}dx = \int_1^5 6\sqrt{5 - x}dx ~~-~~ 2\int_1^5 x\sqrt{5 -x}dx
The first integral is straightforward; the second can probably be done with an ordinary substitution.

A final note: what you're calling "partial integration" is actually called "integration by parts," in English. Another integration technique is called "partial fractions decomposition." Similar name, but otherwise very different.
 
Actually, you missed something.

If u=6-2x then x=\frac{6-u}{2}

So your integral would be:
<br /> -\frac{1}{2}\int^{4}_{-4} u*\sqrt{5-\frac{6-u}{2}}du<br />

Now use integration by parts.

Regards.
 
I see now that you were integrating by parts (as was mentioned in the previous post). Partial integration usually refers to integrating a mutlivaraite function with respect to one of its independent variables a la

\text{If }\frac{\partial}{\partial x}F(x,y) = f(x,y) \text{ then } \int f(x,y) \partial x = F(x, y)

The original attempt letting u = 6 - 2x leads to:

du = -2dx \Rightarrow dx = \frac{du}{-2}

x=1,5 \Rightarrow u=4,-4

=\int_4^{-4} u \sqrt{5-x}\;\frac{du}{-2}

=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-4}^4 u \sqrt{5-x}\;{du}\;\;\text{(Note transpose of boundaries)}

then attempting to apply integration by parts one gets

v = u \Rightarrow dv = du

dw = \sqrt{5-x}\;{du} \Rightarrow w = \text{ ?}

The expression for dw is in terms of x and we're trying to find an anti-derivative with respect to u. This cannot be done without changing the context to fully in x or in u. Mixed contexts lead to errors. I suspect this came about because the differential factor (du) got lost somewhere along the way.

Sorry for the original confusion.

--Elucidus
 
Why don't you try u=5-x instead. That makes x=5-u and it's easy to work out 6-2x in terms of u. It's really much simpler.
 
Dick said:
Why don't you try u=5-x instead. That makes x=5-u and it's easy to work out 6-2x in terms of u. It's really much simpler.

That is probably a good idea.

So let u = 5-x ~~\tex{then}~~ du = -1dx
New limits:
x = 5 \longrightarrow u = 0
x = 1 \longrightarrow u = 4
-1\int_{0}^{4}(-6+2u)du~~\times~~u^{1/2}

Does that look reasonable ?
 
Last edited:
James889 said:
That is probably a good idea.

So let u = 5-x ~~\tex{then}~~ du = -1dx
New limits:
x = 5 \longrightarrow u = 0
x = 1 \longrightarrow u = 4
-1\int_{0}^{4}(-6+2u)du~~\times~~u^{1/2}

Does that look reasonable ?

6-2x doesn't turn into (-6+2u) if x=5-u, does it? Check that. And you make me nervous writing the u^(1/2) outside the integral, put it back in and multiply the product out. Then integrate.
 
Dick said:
6-2x doesn't turn into (-6+2u) if x=5-u, does it? Check that. And you make me nervous writing the u^(1/2) outside the integral, put it back in and multiply the product out. Then integrate.

Sorry i had a proper brainfart.

(6-2x)~~ \text{in terms of}~~ u~~\text{is}~2u-4

Im also a little confused about the notation. Is the correct notation

2u-4du or just 2u-4 ?

//Jones
 
  • #10
James889 said:
Sorry i had a proper brainfart.

(6-2x)~~ \text{in terms of}~~ u~~\text{is}~2u-4

Im also a little confused about the notation. Is the correct notation

2u-4du or just 2u-4 ?

//Jones
2u - 4 is correct. There are actually two sets of equations: one that defines the relationship between dx and du, and one that defines the relationship between x and u.

If u = 5 - x, then du = -dx
u = 5 - x <==> x = 5 - u ==> 6 - 2x = 6 - 2(5 - u) = 2u - 4
 
  • #11
James889 said:
Sorry i had a proper brainfart.

(6-2x)~~ \text{in terms of}~~ u~~\text{is}~2u-4

Im also a little confused about the notation. Is the correct notation

2u-4du or just 2u-4 ?

//Jones

The correct notation is the integral of (2u-4)*u^(1/2)*du. Expand the product and integrate term by term.
 
  • #12
Quick comment. The limits of integration are reversed. The limits were x = 1 to x = 5. The new "u" values should be u = 4 to u = 0. Limits of integration are not always in ascending order. You can interchange them later by changing the sign of the integral.

--Elucidus
 
  • #13
So.
(2u-4)*u^{1/2} = 2u-4u^{1/2}

Integrating term by term gives u^2-\frac{3}{8}u^{3/2}

~~\left|_{0} ^{4}\left -u^2-\frac{3}{8}u^{3/2}

And the answer is 4.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
James889 said:
So.
(2u-4)*u^{1/2} = 2u-4u^{1/2}

Integrating term by term gives u^2-\frac{3}{8}u^{3/2}

~~\left|_{0} ^{4}\left -u^2-\frac{3}{8}u^{3/2}

And the answer is 4.

Slight mistake:

(2u-4)*u^{1/2} = 2u^{3/2}-4u^{1/2}

The answer, as I mentioned in an earlier post, should be 64/15.

--Elucidus
 
  • #15
Elucidus said:
Slight mistake:

(2u-4)*u^{1/2} = 2u^{3/2}-4u^{1/2}

The answer, as I mentioned in an earlier post, should be 64/15.

--Elucidus

oops, i always mix up the exponential rules =/
 

Similar threads

Replies
105
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top