# Integration

Watch
Announcements
#1

If i was integrating using substitution of , would i need to change the values of 2 and 0 or not?
Since i replace u at the end anyway?

Thanks!
0
6 years ago
#2
(Original post by Zenarthra)

If i was integrating using substitution of , would i need to change the values of 2 and 0 or not?
Since i replace u at the end anyway?

Thanks!
If you replace it, no, but probably best to make it clear that x = 2 or x = 0 (as opposed to u) in the limits.
0
6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Zenarthra)

If i was integrating using substitution of , would i need to change the values of 2 and 0 or not?
Since i replace u at the end anyway?

Thanks!
Firstly, I don't think you wrote what you meant to - I presume your integral should be of a square root, not the x-th root as you've written it.

Secondly, when you make a substitution you have to keep everything consistent - either write your final result as a function of u and change your limits to u limits, or convert your final result back into a function of x and use the original x limits.
0
6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Zenarthra)

If i was integrating using substitution of , would i need to change the values of 2 and 0 or not?
Since i replace u at the end anyway?

Thanks!
I would agree with Davros (I have been doing that a lot lately) but would go further and take usycool's point

My practice is to
Write limits as values
Introduce u and change limits to x=
(if sticking with u)Change limits to u=
Then continue with values
0
#5
(Original post by TenOfThem)
I would agree with Davros (I have been doing that a lot lately) but would go further and take usycool's point

My practice is to
Write limits as values
Introduce u and change limits to x=
(if sticking with u)Change limits to u=
Then continue with values
(Original post by davros)
Firstly, I don't think you wrote what you meant to - I presume your integral should be of a square root, not the x-th root as you've written it.

Secondly, when you make a substitution you have to keep everything consistent - either write your final result as a function of u and change your limits to u limits, or convert your final result back into a function of x and use the original x limits.
Yes you're right davros, i didnt mean to write it out like that. It's my first time using latex so forgive me.
And also TenOfThem thanks, but would be easier when you have limits in x, change them to u and just substitute the limits into u when integrated?
Would I get the same answer?

ThankS!
0
6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Zenarthra)
Yes you're right davros, i didnt mean to write it out like that. It's my first time using latex so forgive me.
And also TenOfThem thanks, but would be easier when you have limits in x, change them to u and just substitute the limits into u when integrated, so it would say replacing u?
I said get the same answer right?

ThankS!
Personally, I would go even further and write u explicitly as a function of x like this:

"By making the substitution we have ... "

I see a lot of books trying to be "clever" by saying things like "Let ...", but this hides the subtlety that you have a choice of which square root to take when you change the limits.

You can write or and get the correct answer either way, but it makes it explicit what you're doing when you convert the limits!
0
#7
(Original post by usycool1)
If you replace it, no, but probably best to make it clear that x = 2 or x = 0 (as opposed to u) in the limits.
Thanks!
0
#8
(Original post by davros)
Personally, I would go even further and write u explicitly as a function of x like this:

"By making the substitution we have ... "

I see a lot of books trying to be "clever" by saying things like "Let ...", but this hides the subtlety that you have a choice of which square root to take when you change the limits.

You can write or and get the correct answer either way, but it makes it explicit what you're doing when you convert the limits!
Sorry im a little confused here's what i mean:

Would i replace the u's or just get the u's from the x values and find the area that way, would it give me the same answer?

ThankS!
0
6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Zenarthra)
...
When you make a change of variable, you must change the limits to your new variable. When you revert back to your original variable, revert your limits back to normal.

0
6 years ago
#10
Also how would you go about solving the intagral in the OP? Is it possible to do with a-level (including fm) knowledge? Is it even possible to find the closed form of the integral?
0
6 years ago
#11
(Original post by JerzyDudek)
Also how would you go about solving the intagral in the OP? Is it possible to do with a-level (including fm) knowledge? Is it even possible to find the closed form of the integral?
If you mean the one that appeared to have an x-th root in it, then no, I don't think there's a closed form for it!

Actually, looking at the OP's last post I think I'd assumed that x wasn't supposed to be there at all whereas in fact I think the OP intended it to be outside the root and multiplying it, but I don't think that changes any of the arguments above - either the root on its own or the root multiplied by x can be integrated.

OP: if you let then when you change to an integral in u, the limits must be changed too:
x = 0 =>
x = 2 => u = 3
0
6 years ago
#12
(Original post by JerzyDudek)
Also how would you go about solving the intagral in the OP? Is it possible to do with a-level (including fm) knowledge? Is it even possible to find the closed form of the integral?
it would look horrible as would have to divide (u^(1/x))/2 (assuming you let u = 2x+5) by 1/x+1 xD

edit: impossible to do as its impossible to get it all in terms of 1 variable with A-level knowledge(i think) therefore limits cant be applied
0
#13
(Original post by davros)
If you mean the one that appeared to have an x-th root in it, then no, I don't think there's a closed form for it!

Actually, looking at the OP's last post I think I'd assumed that x wasn't supposed to be there at all whereas in fact I think the OP intended it to be outside the root and multiplying it, but I don't think that changes any of the arguments above - either the root on its own or the root multiplied by x can be integrated.

OP: if you let then when you change to an integral in u, the limits must be changed too:
x = 0 =>
x = 2 => u = 3
I understand, thank you!
0
#14
(Original post by Khallil)
When you make a change of variable, you must change the limits to your new variable. When you revert back to your original variable, revert your limits back to normal.

Thanks!
1
6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Zenarthra)
Sorry im a little confused here's what i mean:

Would i replace the u's or just get the u's from the x values and find the area that way, would it give me the same answer?

ThankS!
Dem paint skills
0
#16
(Original post by dilzo999)
dem paint skills
dats how i roll!
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

#### Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (121)
62.37%
I don't have everything I need (73)
37.63%