# A-Level Maths IntegrationWatch

Announcements
#1
Hi,
Not sure how to integrate this question...can anyone explain how I could solve it
Integrate: xe^x2 (limits 2 and 0)
0
4 days ago
#2
(Original post by aleenapaul)
Hi,
Not sure how to integrate this question...can anyone explain how I could solve it
Integrate: xe^x2 (limits 2 and 0)
I'm assuming you mean ?

Notice that is a constant away from the derivative of . Does that hint you towards a method?

If not, what have you already tried?
0
4 days ago
#3
(Original post by aleenapaul)
Hi,
Not sure how to integrate this question...can anyone explain how I could solve it
Integrate: xe^x2 (limits 2 and 0)
Use the substitution u=x^2 and go from there
1
4 days ago
#4
(Original post by Harrybeld)
Use the substitution u=x^2 and go from there
well u probably know how to differentiate e^x^2 (like any other e^x term) so try going from there. i think it's reverse chain rule.
1
3 days ago
#5
(Original post by juugsailorshawty)
well u probably know how to differentiate e^x^2 (like any other e^x term) so try going from there. i think it's reverse chain rule.
A substitution would be way easier than using integration by parts (which I assume is what you mean by the reverse chain rule). The integral you would end up with would be harder than the one you started with.
0
1 day ago
#6
(Original post by Harrybeld)
A substitution would be way easier than using integration by parts (which I assume is what you mean by the reverse chain rule). The integral you would end up with would be harder than the one you started with.
no that isn't very reverse chain rulish to do integration by parts, there's a separate method called reverse chain rule however
0
1 day ago
#7
(Original post by juugsailorshawty)
no that isn't very reverse chain rulish to do integration by parts, there's a separate method called reverse chain rule however
Sorry, but even mentioning "by parts" is nonsense. The reverse chain rule and by substitution are synonymous.
0
18 hours ago
#8
(Original post by dextrous63)
Sorry, but even mentioning "by parts" is nonsense. The reverse chain rule and by substitution are synonymous.
alright mate don't cry about it
0
#9
(Original post by Harrybeld)
Use the substitution u=x^2 and go from there
(Original post by Harrybeld)
A substitution would be way easier than using integration by parts (which I assume is what you mean by the reverse chain rule). The integral you would end up with would be harder than the one you started with.
thank you
1
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.

### University open days

• Bournemouth University
Wed, 19 Feb '20
• Buckinghamshire New University
Wed, 19 Feb '20
• University of Warwick
Thu, 20 Feb '20

### Poll

Join the discussion

Yes (48)
31.37%
No (79)
51.63%
Don't know (26)
16.99%