# A few questions. Watch

Announcements

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

This discussion is closed.

**(1)**I know that the integral of 1/(2x-1) dx = (1/2)ln(2x-1).

Why can it not also be done as INT 1/2(x-.5) = (1/2)INT(1/x-.5) = (1/2)ln(x-0.5), which gives a completely different answer.

**(2)**Concerning the equation coshu = x

e^u + e^-u = 2x

e^2u + 1 = 2xe^u

e^2u - 2xe^u + 1 = 0

e^u = 2x(+-)rt[4x^2 - 4] / 2

e^u = x(+-)rt[x^2-1] (x>=1)

u = ln[x+-rt(x^2 - 1)]. (x>=1)

arcoshx = ln[x+-rt(x^2-1)]

However, my P5 book neglects the negative root.

It then later says in an answer to a question that coshx=2 has two roots, but arcosh2 has only one root. If they were to include the negative root (as above however) then arcosh 2 would have two roots. Surely coshx=2 and x=arcosh2 should be equivelant?

If they were to include the negative root illustrated in the formula

Thanks for any answers.

0

Report

#2

(Original post by

Why can it not also be done as INT 1/2(x-.5) = (1/2)INT(1/x-.5) = (1/2)ln(x-0.5), which gives a completely different answer.

**Gaz031**)**(1)**I know that the integral of 1/(2x-1) dx = (1/2)ln(2x-1).Why can it not also be done as INT 1/2(x-.5) = (1/2)INT(1/x-.5) = (1/2)ln(x-0.5), which gives a completely different answer.

(Original post by

[

e^u + e^-u = 2x

e^2u + 1 = 2xe^u

e^2u - 2xe^u + 1 = 0

e^u = 2x(+-)rt[4x^2 - 4] / 2

e^u = x(+-)rt[x^2-1] (x>=1)

u = ln[x+-rt(x^2 - 1)]. (x>=1)

arcoshx = ln[x+-rt(x^2-1)]

However, my P5 book neglects the negative root.

It then later says in an answer to a question that coshx=2 has two roots, but arcosh2 has only one root. If they were to include the negative root (as above however) then arcosh 2 would have two roots. Surely coshx=2 and x=arcosh2 should be equivelant?

If they were to include the negative root illustrated in the formula

Thanks for any answers.

**Gaz031**)[

**(2)**Concerning the equation coshu = xe^u + e^-u = 2x

e^2u + 1 = 2xe^u

e^2u - 2xe^u + 1 = 0

e^u = 2x(+-)rt[4x^2 - 4] / 2

e^u = x(+-)rt[x^2-1] (x>=1)

u = ln[x+-rt(x^2 - 1)]. (x>=1)

arcoshx = ln[x+-rt(x^2-1)]

However, my P5 book neglects the negative root.

It then later says in an answer to a question that coshx=2 has two roots, but arcosh2 has only one root. If they were to include the negative root (as above however) then arcosh 2 would have two roots. Surely coshx=2 and x=arcosh2 should be equivelant?

If they were to include the negative root illustrated in the formula

Thanks for any answers.

The thing is, you want arccosh to be a function, just like you want arcsin to be - even though sinx = 1/2 has infinitely many solutions we choose

arcsin(1/2) = pi/6.

0

Report

#3

(Original post by

Why can it not also be done as INT 1/2(x-.5) = (1/2)INT(1/x-.5) = (1/2)ln(x-0.5), which gives a completely different answer.

e^u + e^-u = 2x

e^2u + 1 = 2xe^u

e^2u - 2xe^u + 1 = 0

e^u = 2x(+-)rt[4x^2 - 4] / 2

e^u = x(+-)rt[x^2-1] (x>=1)

u = ln[x+-rt(x^2 - 1)]. (x>=1)

arcoshx = ln[x+-rt(x^2-1)]

However, my P5 book neglects the negative root.

It then later says in an answer to a question that coshx=2 has two roots, but arcosh2 has only one root. If they were to include the negative root (as above however) then arcosh 2 would have two roots. Surely coshx=2 and x=arcosh2 should be equivelant?

If they were to include the negative root illustrated in the formula

Thanks for any answers.

**Gaz031**)**(1)**I know that the integral of 1/(2x-1) dx = (1/2)ln(2x-1).Why can it not also be done as INT 1/2(x-.5) = (1/2)INT(1/x-.5) = (1/2)ln(x-0.5), which gives a completely different answer.

**(2)**Concerning the equation coshu = xe^u + e^-u = 2x

e^2u + 1 = 2xe^u

e^2u - 2xe^u + 1 = 0

e^u = 2x(+-)rt[4x^2 - 4] / 2

e^u = x(+-)rt[x^2-1] (x>=1)

u = ln[x+-rt(x^2 - 1)]. (x>=1)

arcoshx = ln[x+-rt(x^2-1)]

However, my P5 book neglects the negative root.

It then later says in an answer to a question that coshx=2 has two roots, but arcosh2 has only one root. If they were to include the negative root (as above however) then arcosh 2 would have two roots. Surely coshx=2 and x=arcosh2 should be equivelant?

If they were to include the negative root illustrated in the formula

Thanks for any answers.

2) Actually, the book forgot the negative root. However the function arcoshx just gives you one solution. Because ... I forgot what it's called. But remember arcsinx or arccosx ... they just take one value .... but you can get others by plus 2kpi.

What I mean is If y = f(x) so y just have only one value although x has many values. Here, u = arcoshx, so u just have one root. But the question ask x = coshu -> u can have more than 1 for each value of x.

0

(1) Thanks. I now realise they are simply an addition of ln2 apart.

(2) Arcsin(0.5) = u has many solutions that are simply gained by adding suitable multiples though. It isn't restricted to just one like they are restricting arcosh. I'm still not happy with this. They're missing a root to make it easier to write out the function? Surely that's sheer laziness. Lets not draw parallels with the trigonetric functions as this result is actually derived using algebra. They don't miss out the negative root for the general solution to quadratic equations! Sorry for being picky but i like to have everything nailed down if i'm going to study this at university.

So is there any really good reason why the negative root is rejected?

(2) Arcsin(0.5) = u has many solutions that are simply gained by adding suitable multiples though. It isn't restricted to just one like they are restricting arcosh. I'm still not happy with this. They're missing a root to make it easier to write out the function? Surely that's sheer laziness. Lets not draw parallels with the trigonetric functions as this result is actually derived using algebra. They don't miss out the negative root for the general solution to quadratic equations! Sorry for being picky but i like to have everything nailed down if i'm going to study this at university.

So is there any really good reason why the negative root is rejected?

0

Report

#5

(Original post by

(2) Arcsin(0.5) = u has many solutions that are simply gained by adding suitable multiples though. It isn't restricted to just one like they are restricting arcosh. I'm still not happy with this. They're missing a root to make it easier to write out the function? Surely that's sheer laziness. Lets not draw parallels with the trigonetric functions as this result is actually derived using algebra. They don't miss out the negative root for the general solution to quadratic equations! Sorry for being picky but i like to have everything nailed down if i'm going to study this at university.

So is there any really good reason why the negative root is rejected?

**Gaz031**)(2) Arcsin(0.5) = u has many solutions that are simply gained by adding suitable multiples though. It isn't restricted to just one like they are restricting arcosh. I'm still not happy with this. They're missing a root to make it easier to write out the function? Surely that's sheer laziness. Lets not draw parallels with the trigonetric functions as this result is actually derived using algebra. They don't miss out the negative root for the general solution to quadratic equations! Sorry for being picky but i like to have everything nailed down if i'm going to study this at university.

So is there any really good reason why the negative root is rejected?

0

X

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

new posts

Back

to top

to top