What is the best approach to integrating 1/sqrt(u^2)?

  • Thread starter FunkyDwarf
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Integral
In summary, without knowing what the integral is supposed to be telling you, sqrt(u^2)= |u| and u/|u|= 1 if u is positive, -1 if u is negative (and is undefined at u= 0).
  • #1
FunkyDwarf
489
0
Well either that or I am missing something obvious =)
I need to integrate 1/sqrt(u^2)

Now i can't just apply the square root because then i lose all information about the minus values. I've tried various substitutions, trig ones seem to make it worse and I've run the integral in mathematica and it returns an answer that i agree with and fits with what I am trying to do but I am not sure how to get it :S

Im sure its something simple that my tired caffeine saturated brain is missing, so be gentle with me :P

Cheers
-G
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, sqrt(u^2)=|u|.
 
  • #3
isn't this just the same as [tex]|\frac{1}{u}|[/tex]?

Edit: quasar beat me to it :-)
 
  • #4
Hi G! :smile:

Integrate from -∞ to 0, and integrate separately from 0 to +∞, and add! :smile:
 
  • #5
tiny-tim said:
Hi G! :smile:

Integrate from -∞ to 0, and integrate separately from 0 to +∞, and add! :smile:
That's going to be rather difficult to do! :smile:
 
  • #6
oops!

oah … aah …
:rolleyes: maybe not 0 :rolleyes:
 
  • #7
no i understand its the magnitude its just mathematica gives a result of u Ln(u) /sqrt(u^2) and i don't know how to get that. Its been a while since i did methods of integration, as you can probably tell :P

EDIT: By the way we know that u itself is always negative and I am integrating from x0 to zero. Its to show that a particle in a certain potential will take forever to fall in basically so i need either a 1/u term somewhere or log (not Abs(u))
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Well IF u is always negative, as you mentioned, then 1/sqrt(u^2) = 1/|u| = 1/(-u) can't you just integrate that? and get -ln|u|
 
  • #9
Yes but the only problem being i should get the same answer for u always positive. Basically I am applying boundary conditions too soon i think, I am supposed to show that it is always negative from the integral. I am not sure what I am allowed to assume, have a tute with lecturer tomorrow will ask then.

Thanks for your help guys
 
  • #10
You can also add an infitessimal imaginary term to the denominator:

[tex]\frac{1}{|x|} \longrightarrow \frac{1}{|x + i\epsilon|}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2 + \epsilon^{2}}}[/tex]

This is easy to integrate. You can let the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] tend to zero at the end of the calculations.
 
  • #11
FunkyDwarf said:
no i understand its the magnitude its just mathematica gives a result of u Ln(u) /sqrt(u^2) and i don't know how to get that. Its been a while since i did methods of integration, as you can probably tell :P

EDIT: By the way we know that u itself is always negative and I am integrating from x0 to zero. Its to show that a particle in a certain potential will take forever to fall in basically so i need either a 1/u term somewhere or log (not Abs(u))


I don't know why Mathematica is avoiding |u|. Again, sqrt(u^2)= |u| and u/|u|= 1 if u is positive, -1 if u is negative (and is undefined at u= 0). What mathematica is telling you is that the integral is ln(u) if u is positive and -ln(|u|)= -ln(-u) if u is negative.

That's true because your integral reduces to [itex]\int du/u= ln(|u|)= ln(u)[itex] if u is positive and [itex]-\int du/u= -ln(|u|)= -ln(-u)[/itex] if u is negative.

("+ C" of course)

If you are integrating from x0 to 0, the (improper) integral does not exist.
 
  • #12
Sometimes you need to tell Mathematica to "Simplify", to "FullSimplify, to "FunctionExpand", to "PowerExpand" etc. etc. :approve:
 
  • #13
Yeh no i could see it wasnt simplified, just thought maybe there was a catch i was missing. Ok guys seems i was reading too much into it :P thanks !
 

What is a "Deceptively cunning integral"?

A "Deceptively cunning integral" refers to a type of mathematical integral that may appear simple or straightforward at first glance, but is actually much more complex and requires creative thinking to solve.

How is a "Deceptively cunning integral" different from a regular integral?

The main difference is in the level of difficulty. A "Deceptively cunning integral" is designed to trick or deceive the person solving it, while a regular integral follows well-established rules and can be solved using standard methods.

Why are mathematicians interested in "Deceptively cunning integrals"?

Many mathematicians enjoy the challenge and mental exercise of solving difficult problems. "Deceptively cunning integrals" provide a unique and entertaining challenge for them to solve.

How can one approach solving a "Deceptively cunning integral"?

There is no one set method for solving these types of integrals, as they often require creative thinking and outside-the-box approaches. Some strategies that may be helpful include breaking the integral into smaller parts, using substitution or integration by parts, and looking for patterns in the equation.

Can "Deceptively cunning integrals" have real-world applications?

While these types of integrals may not have direct real-world applications, the problem-solving skills and critical thinking involved in solving them can be applied to various fields, such as engineering, physics, and computer science.

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
828
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
747
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top