You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Integral of -64cos^3x watch

1. (Original post by Zacken)

Flattering but very untrue.

Spoiler:
Show
It's very admirable that you're asking questions on here! You're not the type of person to go "oh well, doesn't work, lel" and instead want to find out why what you did was wrong instead of just accepting the new method. I guarantee that this will get you very far in any mathematical field and I'm entirely sure that you'll ace your exams.
Awww thank you. Just makes me nervous as I'm doing maths at uni but there's people like you around! So what do I know! Oh well

Posted from TSR Mobile
2. (Original post by maths_4_life)
Why can't you? Thanks though

Posted from TSR Mobile
Well, you're integrating with respect to x. And is a function of . Would you agree that ? Of course not - is a function of (that is, it depends and varies as varies) and can't be treated as a constant. Same applies to .
3. (Original post by Student403)
That's the key though. You asked and that makes you a really good learner. So keep using TSR (maths forum - stay away from chat ) and you'll be fine!
))

Posted from TSR Mobile
4. (Original post by Zacken)
Well, you're integrating with respect to x. And is a function of . Would you agree that ? Of course not - is a function of (that is, it depends and varies as varies) and can't be treated as a constant. Same applies to .
I don't really understand your example :/ can you explain a bit more....like how it is similar to the problem I had

Posted from TSR Mobile
5. (Original post by Zacken)
Well, you're integrating with respect to x. And is a function of . Would you agree that ? Of course not - is a function of (that is, it depends and varies as varies) and can't be treated as a constant. Same applies to .
Ohhhh no I understand!!!! Just overcomplicating things! Thank you that really helps

Posted from TSR Mobile
6. (Original post by maths_4_life)
I don't really understand your example :/ can you explain a bit more....like how it is similar to the problem I had

Posted from TSR Mobile
You asked "why can't you pull out of the integral", right? The answer is because it's a function of and you're integrating with respect to .
7. (Original post by maths_4_life)
Why can't you? Thanks though
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because of what means, it's a little complicated to go into now, but notice that clearly:

EDIT: Wow, I see Zacken has this covered :/ at least my constant is prettier.
8. (Original post by joostan)
Because of what means, it's a little complicated to go into now, but notice that clearly:

EDIT: Wow, I see Zacken has this covered :/ at least my constant is prettier.
Haha yes thank you!!

Posted from TSR Mobile
9. (Original post by joostan)
Because of what means, it's a little complicated to go into now, but notice that clearly:
I'm not sure if you've seen this before but I thought it was very interesting (I did get lost about 2 paragraphs in, but it's more suitable for you level).

P.S: I'm glad to see I used the same counterexample as you.
10. (Original post by joostan)
at least my constant is prettier.
Rekt
11. (Original post by Student403)
Rekt
Hehe

(Original post by Zacken)
I'm not sure if you've seen this before but I thought it was very interesting (I did get lost about 2 paragraphs in, but it's more suitable for you level).

P.S: I'm glad to see I used the same counterexample as you.
I saw you post it before, there's ups and downs for me, didn't take Geometry so manifolds are aren't my thing .

P.S: I'm glad to see I used the same counterexample as you.
Hehe, simplest one there is .

A problem for those interested might be to find all functions such that:
.
12. (Original post by joostan)
A problem for those interested might be to find all functions such that:
.
Differentiate both sides: ? Too late for me, I think, can't spot what I've done wrong.
13. (Original post by Zacken)
Differentiate both sides: ? Too late for me, I think, can't spot what I've done wrong.
No, you're not wrong, I must've misremembered the question I was going to ask. . . it's a post somewhere on here, though I don't know if I can find it now :/
If you replace with you can actually show it's only true for constants.
14. (Original post by joostan)
No, you're not wrong, I must've misremembered the question I was going to ask. . . it's a post somewhere on here, though I don't know if I can find it now :/
If you replace with you can actually show it's only true for constants.
Aye, I remember being the one asking you about something and you bringing that up (if that's what you're talking about) - it was:

Yeah?
15. (Original post by Zacken)
Aye, I remember being the one asking you about something and you bringing that up (if that's what you're talking about) - it was:

Yeah?
Possibly., in fact quite probably . . I'm getting old, forgetting things
16. (Original post by joostan)
Possibly., in fact quite probably . . I'm getting old, forgetting things
#SecondYearMathmoThings
17. (Original post by Zacken)
I know you've been taught that you add one to the power, divide by the new power and the divide by the derivative. But that's just plain incorrect. It only applies to integrands of the form . Anything else, that "rule" doesn't hold anymore and you need to be a whole lot more creative. Differentiation is easy (squeezing toothpaste out of the tube) and integration is hard (putting the toothpaste back into the tube), there are no straightforward rules for it. The above users have given a nice way to integrate this function.
Just an after thought ..... Would the method I had used work for anything in the form (af(X) +b)^n or only (ax+b)^n ?
Eg would it work for (asin(X) + b)^n ? Or (ax^2 + b)^n ?
Thanks

Posted from TSR Mobile
18. (Original post by maths_4_life)
Just an after thought ..... Would the method I had used work for anything in the form (af(X) +b)^n or only (ax+b)^n ?
Eg would it work for (asin(X) + b)^n ? Or (ax^2 + b)^n ?
Thanks

Posted from TSR Mobile
No, the term must be linear. More generally we require an additional term.
.
19. (Original post by maths_4_life)
Just an after thought ..... Would the method I had used work for anything in the form (af(X) +b)^n or only (ax+b)^n ?
Eg would it work for (asin(X) + b)^n ? Or (ax^2 + b)^n ?
Thanks

Posted from TSR Mobile
And if you're wondering why Joostan's formula works, the substitution will prove illuminating.
20. (Original post by B_9710)
.
Spoiler:
Show

Why is your integral spaced like that?

### 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 30, 2016
Today on TSR

### He lied about his age

Thought he was 19... really he's 14

### University open days

Wed, 25 Jul '18
2. University of Buckingham
Wed, 25 Jul '18
3. Bournemouth University
Wed, 1 Aug '18
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