Back
to top
Integration by substitution
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Hey,
I am revising from http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com/...on%20Notes.pdf at present and did the practice integral of https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...-4)%5E1%2F2+dx and did it perfectly fine but it seems both aforementioned sources used the original limits instead of the new limits which makes no sense to me as I thought you had to change the limits and use those (which would give an answer of 1,040.2).
Why are they using the original limits of 3 and 4 and not 5 and 12?
Thanks.
I am revising from http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com/...on%20Notes.pdf at present and did the practice integral of https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...-4)%5E1%2F2+dx and did it perfectly fine but it seems both aforementioned sources used the original limits instead of the new limits which makes no sense to me as I thought you had to change the limits and use those (which would give an answer of 1,040.2).
Why are they using the original limits of 3 and 4 and not 5 and 12?
Thanks.
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by Chichaldo)
Hey,
I am revising from http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com/...on%20Notes.pdf at present and did the practice integral of https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...-4)%5E1%2F2+dx and did it perfectly fine but it seems both aforementioned sources used the original limits instead of the new limits which makes no sense to me as I thought you had to change the limits and use those (which would give an answer of 1,040.2).
Why are they using the original limits of 3 and 4 and not 5 and 12?
Thanks.
Hey,
I am revising from http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com/...on%20Notes.pdf at present and did the practice integral of https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...-4)%5E1%2F2+dx and did it perfectly fine but it seems both aforementioned sources used the original limits instead of the new limits which makes no sense to me as I thought you had to change the limits and use those (which would give an answer of 1,040.2).
Why are they using the original limits of 3 and 4 and not 5 and 12?
Thanks.
1
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by Chichaldo)
Hey,
I am revising from http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com/...on%20Notes.pdf at present and did the practice integral of https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...-4)%5E1%2F2+dx and did it perfectly fine but it seems both aforementioned sources used the original limits instead of the new limits which makes no sense to me as I thought you had to change the limits and use those (which would give an answer of 1,040.2).
Why are they using the original limits of 3 and 4 and not 5 and 12?
Thanks.
Hey,
I am revising from http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com/...on%20Notes.pdf at present and did the practice integral of https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...-4)%5E1%2F2+dx and did it perfectly fine but it seems both aforementioned sources used the original limits instead of the new limits which makes no sense to me as I thought you had to change the limits and use those (which would give an answer of 1,040.2).
Why are they using the original limits of 3 and 4 and not 5 and 12?
Thanks.
and 
if you revert your integrated function 
back into 
2
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by _gcx)
Neither source uses the original limits (3 and 4), can explain a bit what you mean?
Neither source uses the original limits (3 and 4), can explain a bit what you mean?
without showing it.
0
reply
(Original post by _gcx)
Neither source uses the original limits (3 and 4), can explain a bit what you mean?
Neither source uses the original limits (3 and 4), can explain a bit what you mean?
(Original post by RDKGames)
You can use the limits of and if you revert your integrated function back into
You can use the limits of
and if you revert your integrated function back into
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
