Using integration by parts to prove reduction fomula

Ianfinity
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Use integration by parts to prove the reduction formula:
int(sec^n)x dx = (tan(x)*sec^(n-2)*x)/(n-1) + [(n-2)/(n-1)]int(sec^(n-2)*x dx

n /= 1 (n does not equal 1)

I used "int" in place of the integral sign.


This was a problem on the corresponding test from the cal A class I am from the past semester. I think there might be something like it on my test tomorrow, but I can't figure it out. Apologies if my formatting of the problem is confusing.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ianfinity said:
Use integration by parts to prove the reduction formula:
int(sec^n)x dx = (tan(x)*sec^(n-2)*x)/(n-1) + [(n-2)/(n-1)]int(sec^(n-2)*x dx

n /= 1 (n does not equal 1)

I used "int" in place of the integral sign.


This was a problem on the corresponding test from the cal A class I am from the past semester. I think there might be something like it on my test tomorrow, but I can't figure it out. Apologies if my formatting of the problem is confusing.

Thanks in advance.

What's your question?

Since you're doing integration by parts, it would help if you show us what you used for u and dv.
 
Mark44 said:
What's your question?

Since you're doing integration by parts, it would help if you show us what you used for u and dv.

The question is how do I prove the reduction formula here.

I used u=(sec x)^n and dv=dx, so du=sec(x)tan(x)dx and v=x

Where I'm getting most confused at is the part where it says to add (n-2)/(n-1)int(sec^(n-2))xdx

I don't see why (n-2)/(n-1) is multiplied by the integral there... I know I'm missing something, but what? Do I need to use substitution rule in here at some point?

Thanks for your timely response! I didn't expect to see anything for a few hours.
 
Hi Ianfinity,
In your response, you have said that u=(secx)^n , but having made that choice your expression for du/dx is incorrect. I don't think your choice of u is going to yield any useful results, you need to manipulate it a bit before you can apply parts.

As a hint: When you use parts to find a reduction formula, you will usually be aiming to get the new integral to be your original integral to a different power. You can see from the problem statement that this is included in the final answer (sec(x)^(n-2))
You need to think about how the original integral (sec(x)^n) has been split, to allow this term to be formed.
 
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