Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bananarama2)
    By parts...?
    (Original post by joostan)
    As above, by parts and evaluating the limits around uv.
    :facepalm: Way too tired to be on TSR
    (Original post by bogstandardname)
    Is this differentiation under the integral sign? Or if not what is this technique, is it useful?
    Certainly is! You are essentially generalising the expression in order to allow taking the partial derivative of an integral with respect to a variable (that is independent of that which you are integrating with respect to) and, hence, altering the problem to one that is more manageable. Re-intergrating in order to find the original function (before it was partially differentiated) can be seen as being analogous to the inverse Laplace Transformation and other such transformations of this nature

    It was set in the "Putnam" competition as one of the harder problems (University level competition for top few thousand university students in the US) and almost no-one managed to do it! I thought it was a really nice example of how powerful the technique is! I looked up the solutions after I tried it and this particular method was listed as "Solution 3" (with the other ones looking insane!)

    Btw, If you've just learnt the technique, try some of the problems I posted the other day, they are a nice introduction

    Alternate solutions can be found under "Problem A5" for those who are interested.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Solution 166

    Letting x\to x^{-1} and adding the integrals reveals that:

    \displaystyle\int_0^{\infty} \frac{x\ln x\,dx}{(x^2+1)(x^3+1)^2}=\frac{1  }{2}\left(\int_0^{\infty} \frac{x\ln x\,dx}{(x^3+1)^2}-\int_0^{\infty} \frac{x^3\ln x\,dx}{(x^3+1)^2}\right)

    Observe also both these integrals are the same (let x\to x^{-1}) hence we have:

    \displaystyle\int_0^{\infty} \frac{x\ln x\,dx}{(x^2+1)(x^3+1)^2}=\int_0^  {\infty} \frac{x\ln x\,dx}{(x^3+1)^2}

    Set \displaystyle f(\lambda)=\int_0^{\infty} \frac{x^{\lambda}\,dx}{(x^3+1)^2  } and let t=(x^3+1)^{-1}:

    \begin{aligned}  f(\lambda)=\displaystyle\frac{1}  {3}\int_0^{1}\left(\frac{1}{t}-1\right)^{\frac{\lambda-2}{3}}\,dt &= \frac{1}{3}\int_0^{1}t^{\frac{2-\lambda}{3}}\left(1-t\right)^{\frac{\lambda-2}{3}}\,dt \\&=\frac{1}{3}\text{B}\left( \frac{5-\lambda}{3},\,\frac{1+\lambda}{3  }\right)\\ &=\frac{1}{3}\Gamma \left(\frac{5-\lambda}{3} \right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1+ \lambda}{3}\right)\\&=\frac{\pi(  2-\lambda)}{9}\csc\left(\frac{1+ \lambda}{3}\pi\right)\end{aligne  d}

    Differentiate and set \lambda =1:

    \displaystyle\int_0^{\infty} \frac{x\ln x\,dx}{(x^2+1)(x^3+1)^2}=\frac{2  \pi}{27} \left(\frac{\pi}{3}-\sqrt{3}\right)



    (Original post by joostan)
    Or rather, * isn't really A-Level knowledge :cool:
    The solutions people post to (*) problems aren't necessarily (*) - a single star only indicates that the question can be done with A-level knowledge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hint for my problem
    Consider the conservation of angular momentum.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    "The Mathematica computer algebra system (version 5.2) successfully computes this integral, but we do not know how."

    That's right
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
    The solutions people post to (*) problems aren't necessarily (*) - a single star only indicates that the question can be done with A-level knowledge.
    Is this some kind of sneaky quote where you don't get notified o.O
    It's not just that, I'm not convinced that some of these problems are really * but hey ho :rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    "The Mathematica computer algebra system (version 5.2) successfully computes this integral, but we do not know how."

    That's right
    Hahahaha :lol:

    **** Compsci! Pure maths strikes back with solutions 4, and especially, 5 It's so nice! It reminds me of the irrationality proofs for \zeta(2) (which then leads to the irrationality of \pi^2 and \pi) and \zeta(3) (which is a problem I set on here that no-ones been able to solve yet!) I think it needed a hint because no-one pre-PhD-level would likely be able to solve it unless they had seen the approach used on other things like this and \zeta(2)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
    Differentiate and set \lambda =1:
    How did you get from f(\lambda) to having evaluated the thing with the log in it? :confused:

    Nice solution btw! Do you know of any similar problems that would be nice to practice the use of all of the little Beta/Gamma/Zeta function theorems?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkn)
    :facepalm: Way too tired to be on TSR

    Certainly is! You are essentially generalising the expression in order to allow taking the partial derivative of an integral with respect to a variable (that is independent of that which you are integrating with respect to) and, hence, altering the problem to one that is more manageable. Re-intergrating in order to find the original function (before it was partially differentiated) can be seen as being analogous to the inverse Laplace Transformation and other such transformations of this nature

    It was set in the "Putnam" competition as one of the harder problems (University level competition for top few thousand university students in the US) and almost no-one managed to do it! I thought it was a really nice example of how powerful the technique is! I looked up the solutions after I tried it and this particular method was listed as "Solution 3" (with the other ones looking insane!)

    Btw, If you've just learnt the technique, try some of the problems I posted the other day, they are a nice introduction

    Alternate solutions can be found under "Problem A5" for those who are interested.
    I haven't even learnt partial derivatives yet so I'll give this a miss until summer I think.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bogstandardname)
    I haven't even learnt partial derivatives yet so I'll give this a miss until summer I think.
    They're nothing difficult! The justification/adjusting is often excruciatingly tedious and difficult but with theorem like the Leibniz Integral Rule (aka. Feynman Integration aka. "Differentiating under the integral sign") you need only apply it without much thought (though you must assure the function is continuous in the relevant range - as usual) so it's definitely worth learning! Wikipedia is a good place to start, that's where I found a lot of these problems in fact :lol:

    In a nut shell: \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha} f(\alpha, x) is done by assuming all other variables except the subject of your partial differentiation are constant.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    e.g: \displaystyle\frac{\partial^2}{ \partial y^2} xy^2=\frac{\partial}{\partial y} 2xy=2x
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    It's not just that, I'm not convinced that some of these problems are really * but hey ho :rolleyes:
    Disprove my claim by counterexample then

    (Original post by Jkn)
    How did you get from f(\lambda) to having evaluated the thing with the log in it? :confused:
    I don't understand your question.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
    Disprove my claim by counterexample then
    Well, if Mladenov's solution to 168 counts as A Level knowledge...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJMayes)
    Well, if Mladenov's solution to 168 counts as A Level knowledge...
    But that's only his solution - LotF must have labelled it as * if a solution with A-level knowledge exists...give me a few hours :L
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    I wish I could actually solve some of the questions that are posted here, however the sight of some are just too much for me to even give it a go! I'm curious to learn all the new techniques but that'll all have to wait until the holidays after exams then hopefully I'll be able to attempt some of these questions
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
    I don't understand your question.
    Well how did you get from the integral to f(\lambda)? i.e. where did the log go?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    "The Mathematica computer algebra system (version 5.2) successfully computes this integral, but we do not know how."

    That's right
    LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

    I actually don't understand the sentence though. If it's referring to the Gaussian error integral, surely the authors do know how Mathematica (successfully) computes the integral? :confused::confused::confused:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkn)
    Well how did you get from the integral to f(\lambda)?
    I didn't, I defined f and evaluated it. Then, as stated, f'(1) is the integral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MathsNerd1)
    I wish I could actually solve some of the questions that are posted here, however the sight of some are just too much for me to even give it a go! I'm curious to learn all the new techniques but that'll all have to wait until the holidays after exams then hopefully I'll be able to attempt some of these questions
    I want to learn the techniques too. But with my friends telling me to get out more I don't think it's going to happen :rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
    I didn't, I defined f and evaluated it. Then, as stated, f'(1) is the integral.
    But \displaystyle f'(\lambda)=\int_0^{\infty} \lambda \frac{x^{\lambda-1}\,dx}{(x^3+1)^2  } ? :confused: But we havent proved that this would be equal to the thing with the log in? Have I missed something? :confused:


    On your marks...
    ...
    Get set...
    ...

    Problem 169*/**/*** (Looks friendly... at first)

    Evaluate \displaystyle\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{  2}}x\cot(x) dx

    Problem 170​***

    Prove that \displaystyle \int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}} (\sin \theta)^{2x-1} (\cos \theta)^{2y-1} d\theta = \frac{x+y}{2xy} \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(1+\frac{xy}{n(x+y+n)} \right)^{-1}
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Problem 169*/** (Finally a question that normal people can do without Stokes' theorem or Lagrange multipliers).

    This is a short but simple problem for you guys (your mathematical ability is far more superior to mine). Did take me a fair time though to realize what to do, but it was nice.

    Prove the following result:

    





\cos \frac{\pi}{7} - \cos \frac{2\pi}{7}+\cos \frac{3\pi}{7} = \frac{1}{2}.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Suggestion for people - if a problem can theoretically be done with only * (A-Level) knowledge but requires a lot of cleverness compared to the ** version, make that explicit, because it saves people from trying questions and then getting horribly frustrated. Having said that, most of you left on the thread are dedicated mathmos so go ahead and keep posting I guess...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 22, 2018
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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