You are Here: Home >< Maths

# The Proof is Trivial! Watch

1. (Original post by FireGarden)
If cool is what we want, here's the coolest evaluation of an integral I've seen.

We want to evaluate .

We will proceed with dimensional analysis. Suppose x represents some length, so it has dimension . The exp function is required to have dimensionless input (as it is dimensionless itself), so must have dimension , and of course has dimension .

Overall the LHS has dimension . Thus has these dimensions too, so where is a dimensionless constant. In particular, which defines this constant, hence
Ah, I've had this hinted at by Siklos, but he didn't actually give an example - that is really really neat

EDIT: it's actually nicer than the DUTIS way, I think!
2. (Original post by FireGarden)
If cool is what we want, here's the coolest evaluation of an integral I've seen.

We want to evaluate .

We will proceed with dimensional analysis. Suppose x represents some length, so it has dimension . The exp function is required to have dimensionless input (as it is dimensionless itself), so must have dimension , and of course has dimension .

Overall the LHS has dimension . Thus has these dimensions too, so where is a dimensionless constant. In particular, which defines this constant, hence
that is just beautiful. I knew you could use dimensional analysis to check forms of equations and build them up, but to actually get f(a) like that is wow!

I think you could use a similar idea for the arctanx integral then.
3. (Original post by FireGarden)
If cool is what we want, here's the coolest evaluation of an integral I've seen.

We want to evaluate .

We will proceed with dimensional analysis. Suppose x represents some length, so it has dimension . The exp function is required to have dimensionless input (as it is dimensionless itself), so must have dimension , and of course has dimension .

Overall the LHS has dimension . Thus has these dimensions too, so where is a dimensionless constant. In particular, which defines this constant, hence
That very nice, but can it be made rigorous?
4. (Original post by james22)
That very nice, but can it be made rigorous?
You can DUTIS to check the answer, I suppose, but that's no easier than the original :P
5. (Original post by james22)
That very nice, but can it be made rigorous?
Well, I'm no expert but it is rigourous. Another way to look at it is to take the 'units' as being some factor to do substitutions with. In the original integral, you can sub , then you'll get the functional equation , which I guess* leads to the unique solution .

*I guess comes from the initial note - I'm no expert! I don't know much about functional equations at all, but it will surely have some theory that shows this is entirely rigourous.
6. (Original post by FireGarden)
If cool is what we want, here's the coolest evaluation of an integral I've seen.

We want to evaluate .

We will proceed with dimensional analysis. Suppose x represents some length, so it has dimension . The exp function is required to have dimensionless input (as it is dimensionless itself), so must have dimension , and of course has dimension .

Overall the LHS has dimension . Thus has these dimensions too, so where is a dimensionless constant. In particular, which defines this constant, hence
I never thought Dimensional Analysis could be used like that.
7. (Original post by jjpneed1)
In case you're interested in how I did it, here's a hint:
Spoiler:
Show
differentiation under the integral sign
Could you post this calculation, please? I can't see it.
8. (Original post by ζ(s))
Could you post this calculation, please? I can't see it.
Spoiler:
Show
Consider then differentiate under the integral with respect to a. It should be clear what to do from there, just some arctan and simpler natural log integrals if I recall. If you want I can send my solution.
9. (Original post by jjpneed1)
Spoiler:
Show
Consider then differentiate under the integral with respect to a. It should be clear what to do from there, just some arctan and simpler natural log integrals if I recall. If you want I can send my solution.
I don't think the works because, if I recall, one of the integrals that you end up getting isn't simple at all.
10. (Original post by ζ(s))
I don't think the works because, if I recall, one of the integrals that you end up getting isn't simple at all.
It certainly works. I just checked my working and the only non-simple integral is in fact the integral in the last problem which you have to integrate indefinitely this time. So just give a series solution for it (essentially the last problem, but without plugging in limits) which should make it the integral requiring the least amount of work
11. (Original post by jjpneed1)
It certainly works. I just checked my working and the only non-simple integral is in fact the integral in the last problem which you have to integrate indefinitely this time. So just give a series solution for it (essentially the last problem, but without plugging in limits) which should make it the integral requiring the least amount of work
Could you post the solution, please, if you don't mind? I'm not sure how you have done it with the series.
12. (Original post by ζ(s))
Could you post the solution, please, if you don't mind? I'm not sure how you have done it with the series.
Spoiler:
Show
hence

Integrating term by term -

Note that after IBP we are left with which is easily dealt with using

Combining these results in the appropriate way we heroically obtain

.

Observe that hence

Apologies for any errors that may arise.. took me quite a while to do
13. (Original post by jjpneed1)
...
Brilliant stuff! It never dawned on me to ignore the non-closed form and that it would disappear in the end due to the initial condition. Even when you spelled it out as a hint, I was like 'what sorcery is this?' Thanks for typing this up.
14. Problem 9001:

Prove that:

Edit: Made it a 'show that' question instead.
15. (Original post by Tarquin Digby)
Problem 9001:

Prove that:

Edit: Made it a 'show that' question instead.
Spoiler:
Show

Let then , thus:

From here on we will need two quite simple results to unlock the integral.

Result/Lemma #1: .

Proof: The usual ways (differentiating the geometric series being the easiest).

Result/Lemma #2: .

Proof: Your favourite method (e.g. by parts, among other methods).

Applying result/lemma #1 first and then result/lemma #2, we have the following:

Spoiler:
Show

Now we write it as an integral again, and use result/lemma #1 again!

Spoiler:
Show
16. (Original post by ζ(s))
Spoiler:
Show

Let then , thus:

From here on we will need two quite simple results to unlock the integral.

Fact/Lemma #1: .

Proof: The usual ways (differentiating the geometric series being the easiest).

Fact/Lemma #2: .

Proof: Your favourite method (e.g. by parts, among other methods).

Applying fact/lemma #1 first and then fact/lemma #2, we have the following:

Now we write it as an integral again, and use fact/lemma #1 again!

Spoiler:
Show

O.O

Alternatively use integration by parts on and the result is immediate. Though your way looks cooler I admit
17. (Original post by jjpneed1)
O.O

Alternatively use integration by parts on and the result is immediate. Though your way looks cooler I admit
If we want cool, how about defining then putting .
18. (Original post by ζ(s))
If we want cool, how about defining then putting .
Pretty average tbh

Problem 471
Determine all sets of non-negative integers and that satisfy .

Problem 472
Evaluate

Last ones for a while now while I sit some tasty exams, gl on that integral, good job if someone gets it out before exams finish
19. Why are the problems up to the 9000s..?
20. (Original post by FireGarden)
In particular, which defines this constant
Where is this coming from? I don't see how you know this unless you know how to evaluate the integral with in the usual fashion.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: December 11, 2017
Today on TSR

### Last-minute PS help

100s of personal statements examples here

### Loneliness at uni

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

## Make your revision easier

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.