Back
to top
Where have I gone wrong in my workings ?
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
It seems to follow similarly to the mark scheme with us both having the Integrand with a coefficient of 20.
But then we diverge and I arrive at a definite integral which gives me a decimal, unlike the mark-scheme..
Where have I gone wrong ?
Thanks.
Last edited by seals2001; 1 month ago
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by seals2001)
It seems to follow similarly to the mark scheme with us both having the Integrand with a coefficient of 20.
But then we diverge and I arrive at a definite integral which gives me a decimal, unlike the mark-scheme..
Where have I gone wrong ?
Thanks.
It seems to follow similarly to the mark scheme with us both having the Integrand with a coefficient of 20.
But then we diverge and I arrive at a definite integral which gives me a decimal, unlike the mark-scheme..
Where have I gone wrong ?
Thanks.
0
reply
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by seals2001)
Added it.
Added it.
if you need to integrate sin2Θ the standard method is to rewrite in terms of cos2Θ and integrate from there.
1
reply
Report
#5
Where you went wrong is the integration of @[email protected] - you would have to do integration by parts again there.
But so much easier to change sin^[email protected] to 1/2-1/[email protected] and integrate that
But so much easier to change sin^[email protected] to 1/2-1/[email protected] and integrate that
1
reply
(Original post by the bear)
you went wrong when you tried to integrate Θsin2Θ
if you need to integrate sin2Θ the standard method is to rewrite in terms of cos2Θ and integrate from there.
you went wrong when you tried to integrate Θsin2Θ
if you need to integrate sin2Θ the standard method is to rewrite in terms of cos2Θ and integrate from there.
1
reply
(Original post by qweqworiet)
Where you went wrong is the integration of @[email protected] - you would have to do integration by parts again there.
But so much easier to change sin^[email protected] to 1/2-1/[email protected] and integrate that
Where you went wrong is the integration of @[email protected] - you would have to do integration by parts again there.
But so much easier to change sin^[email protected] to 1/2-1/[email protected] and integrate that
0
reply
(Original post by qweqworiet)
Where you went wrong is the integration of @[email protected] - you would have to do integration by parts again there.
But so much easier to change sin^[email protected] to 1/2-1/[email protected] and integrate that
Where you went wrong is the integration of @[email protected] - you would have to do integration by parts again there.
But so much easier to change sin^[email protected] to 1/2-1/[email protected] and integrate that
I.e , shouldn't theta on top be 0 , and theta on the bottom be pi/4. ? NOT the other way around ? The value of theta when it is 0 gives the point further along the x axis.
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by seals2001)
For this question, haven't they used the wrong bounds in the definite integral ?
I.e , shouldn't theta on top be 0 , and theta on the bottom be pi/4. ? NOT the other way around ? The value of theta when it is 0 gives the point further along the x axis.
For this question, haven't they used the wrong bounds in the definite integral ?
I.e , shouldn't theta on top be 0 , and theta on the bottom be pi/4. ? NOT the other way around ? The value of theta when it is 0 gives the point further along the x axis.
1
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
