# FP3 - given coshu = x, find sinhu

Watch
Announcements
#1

If I integrate by parts:

let

and let

using the formula for integration by parts and rearranging gives:

If I use the substitution:

let

Using this substitution and rearranging gives:

I want to find this in terms of . To eliminate , I will find in terms of .

I know that

I can therefore say:

Have I misunderstood something about ?

Could someone please explain why I must ignore the negative option when square rooting ?

Thank you.
0
6 years ago
#2
Not done FP3 in a while but arcosh x seems to me to a lot like sqrt(x), in that it's a poorly defined function without some restriction on the range, like arcosh x > 0. So if u=cosh x, we must assume x>0 and so that sinh x > 0.

Of course, we could instead assume that arcosh x <0. But there must be the convention that arcosh x > 0 listed in the textbook/some restriction given in the question that you are expected to follow.
1
6 years ago
#3
The subtlety is in the square rooting process early on. Notice that, when you make the substitution originally, your right hand integral boils down to:

But, in general, , so .

Hence, implicitly in your working, you have assumed that when working towards ; and therefore, you must carry forward this convention when inverting the substitution - i.e. that so that .

[Therefore, your result only actually holds for (as this is where makes sense as a substitution) - However, this is fine in this case, since the original integral only makes sense where is defined, which is conventionally for in FP3 (as electric_ink suggested)]
1
#4
(Original post by electriic_ink)
Not done FP3 in a while but arcosh x seems to me to a lot like sqrt(x), in that it's a poorly defined function without some restriction on the range, like arcosh x > 0. So if u=cosh x, we must assume x>0 and so that sinh x > 0.

Of course, we could instead assume that arcosh x <0. But there must be the convention that arcosh x > 0 listed in the textbook/some restriction given in the question that you are expected to follow.

(Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
The subtlety is in the square rooting process early on. Notice that, when you make the substitution originally, your right hand integral boils down to:

But, in general, , so .

Hence, implicitly in your working, you have assumed that when working towards ; and therefore, you must carry forward this convention when inverting the substitution - i.e. that so that .

[Therefore, your result only actually holds for (as this is where makes sense as a substitution) - However, this is fine in this case, since the original integral only makes sense where is defined, which is conventionally for in FP3 (as electric_ink suggested)]
Ahh, of course! This all makes sense now.

Thank you both

Sorry Farhan.Hanif93 but TSR isn't letting me up-vote your comment or give you rep - the sentiment is there though
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

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

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (145)
14.4%
I'm not sure (42)
4.17%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (302)
29.99%
I have already dropped out (26)
2.58%
I'm not a current university student (492)
48.86%