What's wrong with this approach? U-sub & IBP

  • Thread starter OhBoy
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Approach
In summary: I'm not quite sure I understand you. If you were going to take the integral of sin(1-x) you just take the integral of sin divided by the derivative of the parameter right (cos(1-x))? I'm just not quite sure why this doesn't apply when you put it in terms of U and do the same. I feel like this complies with the rules I was taught for U-sub, but maybe there's exceptions I wasn't taught yet and I'm breaking some type of logic here. Perhaps I'm missing some parameters required for u-sub?I was thinking of taking the integral of sin(1-x). But I guess in terms of U, it would be the
  • #1
OhBoy
29
0

Homework Statement


∫ ex * sin(t-x) dx [/B]

Homework Equations


∫udv = uv - ∫vdu

The Attempt at a Solution


So I know the easiest way to do this is to just use IBP, and when you start with your original equation you can just use some Algebra to get the answer. But I was curious why this approach doesn't work.

u = ex, dx = du/ex
Now the original equation in terms of u:

∫sin(t-ln(u)) du = -cos(t-ln(u))/(-1/u) + C = ucos(t-ln(u)) + c = ex * cos(t-x) + C

I actually went this route on purpose on a quiz because I'm that type of guy who likes to use untraditional ways. Oh well. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Integration by parts doesn't work so well here because it just shifts derivatives around inside the integrand, and taking a derivative of an exponential or sinusoidal function just gives back an exponential or sinusoidal function. If you like non-traditional methods, you could use the fact that ## e^{i\theta} = \cos \theta + i \sin \theta ## to write ## \sin \theta = (e^{i\theta}-e^{-i\theta})/2i ##. Then use this result to get the integral solely in terms of exponential functions.
 
  • #3
Geofleur said:
Integration by parts doesn't work so well here because it just shifts derivatives around inside the integrand, and taking a derivative of an exponential or sinusoidal function just gives back an exponential or sinusoidal function. If you like non-traditional methods, you could use the fact that ## e^{i\theta} = \cos \theta + i \sin \theta ## to write ## \sin \theta = (e^{i\theta}-e^{-i\theta})/2i ##. Then use this result to get the integral solely in terms of exponential functions.
Not quite sure I understand you. If you were going to take the integral of sin(1-x) you just take the integral of sin divided by the derivative of the parameter right (cos(1-x))? I'm just not quite sure why this doesn't apply when you put it in terms of U and do the same. I feel like this complies with the rules I was taught for U-sub, but maybe there's exceptions I wasn't taught yet and I'm breaking some type of logic here. Perhaps I'm missing some parameters required for u-sub?

Also, did you mean u-sub doesn't work here? IBP works fine.
 
  • #4
Oh - I see how IBP would work now. You eventually get the same integral showing up on the right hand side. OK. The way I was suggesting, using Euler's formula, would still work.

As to why u-sub didn't work, I will get back to you a little later (if someone else doesn't first)...
 
  • #5
OhBoy said:

Homework Statement


∫ ex * sin(t-x) dx [/B]

Homework Equations


∫udv = uv - ∫vdu

The Attempt at a Solution


So I know the easiest way to do this is to just use IBP, and when you start with your original equation you can just use some Algebra to get the answer. But I was curious why this approach doesn't work.

u = ex, dx = du/ex
Now the original equation in terms of u:

∫sin(t-ln(u)) du = -cos(t-ln(u))/(-1/u) + C = ucos(t-ln(u)) + c = ex * cos(t-x) + C

I actually went this route on purpose on a quiz because I'm that type of guy who likes to use untraditional ways. Oh well. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

Using integration by parts (is that what you mean by IBP?) twice does work; it gives you an equation involving your original integral on both sides, which can then be solved to get that integral. Back when I was studying integration that was a standard integration trick at the time.
 
  • #6
Geofleur said:
Oh - I see how IBP would work now. You eventually get the same integral showing up on the right hand side. OK. The way I was suggesting, using Euler's formula, would still work.

As to why u-sub didn't work, I will get back to you a little later (if someone else doesn't first)...

Is that what I did? Using my substitution of u = ex, I can replace dx with du/ex right? At the point you're only left with ∫sin(1-ln(u)) du. How would I go about this integral? I was thinking it'd be as straight forward as just dividing the derivative of the parameter. Though, seeing wolframalpha's answer I know I can't do this... So I guess I can only try integrating a trig function if there's one variable in the parameter and not another function? Should this also be reserved for power of 1 variables?

Thanks for the help.
 
  • #7
Ray Vickson said:
Using integration by parts (is that what you mean by IBP?) twice does work; it gives you an equation involving your original integral on both sides, which can then be solved to get that integral. Back when I was studying integration that was a standard integration trick at the time.
Yeah IBP is Integration by Parts.
I'm aware of how the IBP part works. I just like to know where I went wrong. I think I'm understanding why u-sub doesn't work.

Probably should've went the easy route. This was a 2 question quiz so now at most I can get a 50% on it lol. Probably should stick with the easy way, or at least write down both methods. But hey, at least I have a more intuitive understanding now than what I would've had if I avoided this method.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
OhBoy said:
Yeah IBP is Integration by Parts.
I'm aware of how the IBP part works. I just like to know where I went wrong. I think I'm understanding why u-sub doesn't work.

Probably should've went the easy route. This was a 2 question quiz so now at most I can get a 50% on it lol. Probably should stick with the easy way, or at least write down both methods. But hey, at least I have a more intuitive understanding now than what I would've had if I avoided this method.

Your attempt failed because it used the wrong form of substitution. In general, we have
[tex] \int \sin( f(u)) \, du = \int \frac{\sin(v)}{f' \left(f^{-1}(v) \right)} \, dv [/tex]
For ##f(u) = t -\ln (u)## this would give
[tex] \int \sin(t - \ln(u)) \, du = \int \sin(v) e^{t-v} \, dv [/tex]
 
  • Like
Likes RUber
  • #9
OhBoy said:
Is that what I did? Using my substitution of u = ex, I can replace dx with du/ex right? At the point you're only left with ∫sin(1-ln(u)) du. How would I go about this integral? I was thinking it'd be as straight forward as just dividing the derivative of the parameter. Though, seeing wolframalpha's answer I know I can't do this... So I guess I can only try integrating a trig function if there's one variable in the parameter and not another function? Should this also be reserved for power of 1 variables?

Thanks for the help.
After your u substitution, you were still left with a complicated function. You would still want to look for some substitution term that might help simplify that term, though it is not very clear what that might be.
If you are looking for an alternate solution, the only one I can see would be using the expansion that geofleur suggested in post #2. However, the time needed to get to the same solution would be much greater.
 
  • #10
Ray Vickson said:
Your attempt failed because it used the wrong form of substitution. In general, we have
[tex] \int \sin( f(u)) \, du = \int \frac{\sin(v)}{f' \left(f^{-1}(v) \right)} \, dv [/tex]
For ##f(u) = t -\ln (u)## this would give
[tex] \int \sin(t - \ln(u)) \, du = \int \sin(v) e^{t-v} \, dv [/tex]

What is v? And why are we dividing sin(v) by the derivative of the inverse of f of v? I think I'm missing some knowledge here.
 
  • #11
RUber said:
After your u substitution, you were still left with a complicated function. You would still want to look for some substitution term that might help simplify that term, though it is not very clear what that might be.
If you are looking for an alternate solution, the only one I can see would be using the expansion that geofleur suggested in post #2. However, the time needed to get to the same solution would be much greater.

Yeah thanks. I think that particular alternative is over my head right now. So really the goal when integrating a function, like sin, cos, ln and what not, is when the parameter can be substituted into a single variable with a power no more than 1?

I think I need a lesson on the logic for why you can't just divide by the derivative of parameter with respect to your variable.
 
  • #12
OhBoy said:
Yeah thanks. I think that particular alternative is over my head right now. So really the goal when integrating a function, like sin, cos, ln and what not, is when the parameter can be substituted into a single variable with a power no more than 1?
Right. If you can't get it into a simple one-variable substitution, you should look for alternate methods.
 
  • #13
RUber said:
Right. If you can't get it into a simple one-variable substitution, you should look for alternate methods.

Thanks. I edited my previous reply and I'm sort of expecting a complicated answer I probably won't comprehend but I'm curious. I like to be able to 'feel' the answer and feel like I really understand it. I can easily take this advice at face value and do just fine, but I'm curious of the reasoning and logic behind why it's not valid. Probably not going to be easy to see the full scope of these operations but it doesn't hurt to try, right?
 
  • #14
I think I'm over-complicating this. I think I forgot the only reason you end up dividing by the derivative of the inside is because of a u-sub that works and replaces the parameter with a single variable. I'm at that awkward moment where I'm not sure if I get it but I'm not sure of any questions to ask either... Though Ray, further explanation on your post would be appreciated. I don't remember ever seeing that format. Not quite sure how you rewrote the integral to get it in that form.
 
  • #15
OhBoy said:

Homework Statement


∫ ex * sin(t-x) dx
3. The Attempt at a Solution [/B]
So I know the easiest way to do this is to just use IBP, and when you start with your original equation you can just use some Algebra to get the answer. But I was curious why this approach doesn't work.

u = ex, dx = du/ex
Now the original equation in terms of u:

∫sin(t-ln(u)) du = -cos(t-ln(u))/(-1/u) + C = ucos(t-ln(u)) + c = ex * cos(t-x) + C

I actually went this route on purpose on a quiz because I'm that type of guy who likes to use untraditional ways. Oh well. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
Notice that if you take the derivative of your answer, using the product rule, you get:
## \frac{d}{dx}e^x \cos(t-x)= e^x \sin(t-x) + e^x \cos(t-x) ##.
This is not what you want. However, it might provide a clue. If you look at what happens when you take the derivative of ##e^x sin(t-x),## you will see that it is ## \frac{d}{dx}e^x sin(t-x)= -e^x \cos(t-x) + e^x \sin(t-x)##.
Now, it might be pretty clear that if you add these together, you will get rid of the cosine terms in the denominator, and have ##\frac{d}{dx}\left(e^x \cos(t-x)+ e^x sin(t-x) \right) = 2e^x sin(t-x)##, which is very close to (constant multiple of) the function you are trying to integrate.

As for why your substitution didn't work, it is simply that you had a function inside a function. As Ray pointed out, another substitution would be called for, and that would leave you with almost the same thing.
##e^t \int e^{-v } \sin v \, dv ##
 
  • #16
RUber said:
Notice that if you take the derivative of your answer, using the product rule, you get:
## \frac{d}{dx}e^x \cos(t-x)= e^x \sin(t-x) + e^x \cos(t-x) ##.
This is not what you want. However, it might provide a clue. If you look at what happens when you take the derivative of ##e^x sin(t-x),## you will see that it is ## \frac{d}{dx}e^x sin(t-x)= -e^x \cos(t-x) + e^x \sin(t-x)##.
Now, it might be pretty clear that if you add these together, you will get rid of the cosine terms in the denominator, and have ##\frac{d}{dx}\left(e^x \cos(t-x)+ e^x sin(t-x) \right) = 2e^x sin(t-x)##, which is very close to (constant multiple of) the function you are trying to integrate.

As for why your substitution didn't work, it is simply that you had a function inside a function. As Ray pointed out, another substitution would be called for, and that would leave you with almost the same thing.
##e^t \int e^{-v } \sin v \, dv ##

Woah. Why I didn't take the derivative of my answer during the quiz to check it is beyond me..

So, I'm taking it that taking the integral of a function is only doable when the parameter is a single variable, because we don't have access to the process by which the function operates? So if we had f(x) = x^2 + x, pretending that we don't know how f(x) is defined but we do have g(x) which is F(x), , integrating is straight forward, ∫f(x)dx = g(x) but with f(x^2 + 2) = (x^4+4x^2 + 2), there's no way to get the integral of the function by just using it's parameter(s). I think I'm understand it a lot better. Probably should have just sat on this a bit longer. All this time I was just kinda of plugging and chugging u-subs without thinking about the actual reasoning behind it.

Thank you all very much for your answers.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
OhBoy said:
What is v? And why are we dividing sin(v) by the derivative of the inverse of f of v? I think I'm missing some knowledge here.

He made the substitution [itex]v = f(u)[/itex], then used the fact that [itex](f^{-1})'(v) = \frac{1}{f'(f^{-1}(v))}[/itex].
 
  • #18
FeDeX_LaTeX said:
He made the substitution [itex]v = f(u)[/itex], then used the fact that [itex](f^{-1})'(v) = \frac{1}{f'(f^{-1}(v))}[/itex].

Sorry for the questions, but why is the inverse derivative of f(u) being involved?Edit: Sorry disregard. Did it on paper. It's just notation to get v in terms of u. Not used to all of this formal format.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
OhBoy said:
What is v? And why are we dividing sin(v) by the derivative of the inverse of f of v? I think I'm missing some knowledge here.
##v = f(u)##

As to why ##f'## is involved: that is a standard formula in calculus. But, if you want to derive it for yourself, just do the change of variables in
[tex] \int F(f(u)) \, du [/tex]
to ##v = f(u)##. Then, how do you get ##du## in terms of ##v## and ##dv##?
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Ray Vickson said:
##v = f(u)##

As to why ##f'## is involved: that is a standard formula in calculus. But, if you want to derive it for yourself, just do the change of variables in
[tex] \int F(f(u)) \, du [/tex]
to ##v = f(u)##. Then, how do you get ##du## in terms of ##v## and ##dv##?

I gotcha. I was initially confused when I saw the inverse function. I'm familiar with going through the process I just never recognized it as such with that notation.
 
  • #21
OhBoy said:
I was curious why this approach doesn't work.

u = ex, dx = du/ex
Now the original equation in terms of u:

∫sin(t-ln(u)) du = -cos(t-ln(u))/(-1/u) + C = ucos(t-ln(u)) + c = ex * cos(t-x) + C

I actually went this route on purpose on a quiz because I'm that type of guy who likes to use untraditional ways. Oh well. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
It seems you've figured it out already, but I'll comment anyway. If you use the substitution ##v = t-\ln u##, you have ##dv = -du/u##, and the integral becomes
$$\int \sin(t-\ln u)\,du = \int (-u)\sin v\,dv.$$ However, in your attempt, you ended up with
$$(-u) \int \sin v\,dv = -u (-\cos v) = u \cos(t-\ln u)$$. You effectively pulled the ##u## out of the integral, which you can't do because it depends on ##v##.
 

What is U-sub?

U-sub, also known as u-substitution, is a method used in calculus to solve integrals. It involves substituting a part of the integrand with a new variable, typically denoted as "u", in order to simplify the integral and make it easier to solve.

What is IBP?

IBP, also known as integration by parts, is another method used in calculus to solve integrals. It involves breaking down the integrand into two parts and applying the formula: ∫u dv = uv - ∫v du. This method is useful for integrating products of functions.

Can U-sub and IBP be used interchangeably?

No, U-sub and IBP are two different methods and cannot be used interchangeably. They are used for different types of integrals and require different approaches. It is important to understand when to use each method in order to solve integrals correctly.

What are the common mistakes when using U-sub and IBP?

Some common mistakes when using U-sub and IBP include not choosing the correct substitution or not applying the formula correctly. It is also important to pay attention to the limits of integration and make any necessary adjustments. Additionally, forgetting to differentiate or integrate the remaining terms can also lead to mistakes.

Are there any tips for using U-sub and IBP effectively?

Yes, there are a few tips for using U-sub and IBP effectively. It is important to carefully choose the substitution and choose "u" in a way that simplifies the integrand. When using IBP, it is helpful to choose "u" and "dv" in a strategic way in order to make the integral easier to solve. Practice and familiarity with these methods can also improve effectiveness.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
431
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
735
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
980
Replies
5
Views
909
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
672
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
944
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
866
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
905
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top