You are Here: Home >< Maths

# c4 integration question watch

1. can someone please me where I went wrong on this question, in the solutionbank they sub in the conditions half way through the working out, i'm not sure why my method isn't valid?

the answer is meant to be (8+4y)/(2-y)
Attached Images

2. (Original post by Katiee224)
can someone please me where I went wrong on this question, in the solutionbank they sub in the conditions half way through the working out, i'm not sure why my method isn't valid?

the answer is meant to be (8+4y)/(2-y)
when you removed the logs on the first page near the end you added the terms when really the constant is multiplied by the other term
3. (Original post by Katiee224)
can someone please me where I went wrong on this question, in the solutionbank they sub in the conditions half way through the working out, i'm not sure why my method isn't valid?

the answer is meant to be (8+4y)/(2-y)
In the line where you went from to you then left it as a when instead you should have done

This makes your solution . You capiche?
4. ...damn, got ninja-ed there. Oh well, hope you don't mind my un-needed contribution. :-)
5. (Original post by Zacken)
...damn, got ninja-ed there. Oh well, hope you don't mind my un-needed contribution. :-)
Yours was a more detailed explanation.
6. (Original post by Zacken)
damn, got ninja-ed there.
One of the reasons I reduced my level of replies - PRSOM.
7. (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
when you removed the logs on the first page near the end you added the terms when really the constant is multiplied by the other term
(Original post by Zacken)
In the line where you went from to you then left it as a when instead you should have done

This makes your solution . You capiche?
thank youuuuuuuuu i see where I went wrong now

but out of interest, why have I got to combine the In(secx) with InA before I can remove the logs? have all the log terms got to be grouped up before you can then move the log part?
8. (Original post by Katiee224)
thank youuuuuuuuu i see where I went wrong now

but out of interest, why have I got to multiply the In(secx) with InA before I can remove the logs? have all the log terms got to be grouped up before you can then move the log part?
Well basically what you're doing when you remove the logs is applying e to the power of each side. You technically don't have to explicitly write the log terms grouped up first, but you have to know what will happen to them when you make this manipulation.
9. (Original post by Katiee224)
thank youuuuuuuuu i see where I went wrong now

but out of interest, why have I got to multiply the In(secx) with InA before I can remove the logs? have all the log terms got to be grouped up before you can then move the log part?
Yes, in general when you have something like then you're taught to group everything up as . The real reason why you're doing this is because you're taking the (exponential) of both sides of the equation.

So it's a bit like when you have , here you take the exponential of both sides to get:

using the fact that
10. (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
Well basically what you're doing when you remove the logs is applying e to the power of each side. You technically don't have to explicitly write the log terms grouped up first, but you have to know what will happen to them when you make this manipulation.
I give up.
11. (Original post by Zacken)
I give up.
don't feel too bad...it's the last day of term at uni, it's my birthday, and here I am replying as fast as possible to maths queries..
12. (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
don't feel too bad...it's the last day of term at uni, it's my birthday, and here I am replying as fast as possible to maths queries..
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!
13. (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
Well basically what you're doing when you remove the logs is applying e to the power of each side. You technically don't have to explicitly write the log terms grouped up first, but you have to know what will happen to them when you make this manipulation.
(Original post by Zacken)
Yes, in general when you have something like then you're taught to group everything up as . The real reason why you're doing this is because you're taking the (exponential) of both sides of the equation.

So it's a bit like when you have , here you take the exponential of both sides to get:

using the fact that
thank you so much both of you!! makes sense to me now

zacken in there with a very detailed answer, you should be teaching maths you are really good at explaining things
14. (Original post by Zacken)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!
happy birthdayyyyy
15. (Original post by Zacken)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!
haha thanks. I apologise for my peremptory ninja's...

### Related university courses

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: March 18, 2016
Today on TSR

### 2,902

students online now

Exam discussions

Poll
Useful resources

### 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