[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 19 KB, 512x235, integral_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8910332 No.8910332 [Reply] [Original]

can you solve this without a computer/internet?

I came across it recently, and was thinking about revising my calculus knowledge just to solve this.

>> No.8910341
File: 3 KB, 216x70, formulaForOP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8910341

Solution

>> No.8910351

>>8910341
that’s not it. none of your variables are in the integral

>> No.8910367

>>8910332
The arccos stuff goes to the bottom since it's^-1

From there I'm guessing it's some trig sub then fucktons if u-subbing then some IBP.

I got lost and dropped calc ii when we got to trig sub so idk.

>> No.8910370

>>8910332
im saving it for after I re-learn calculus from 0 in 1 week next week

>> No.8910371

>>8910332
>log base e
>not ln

Did you even pass college algebra?

>> No.8910373

>>8910332
0, do your own homework

>> No.8910374

>>8910371
it’s not my image.
and yes.

>> No.8910376

any piggot could solve it
anyone who doesn't waste 90% of its time eating fucking oats, bran, oinking and shit like that could've easily accumulated enough mathematical knowledge to be able to solve that shit easily
(btw, for the ignorant pigs: piggot is the autistic fusion between a pig and a faggot)

>> No.8910385

all is see is just a lot of talk and not a single try at attempting to solve that or answer the OP’s question
did /sci/ really deteriorate that much

>> No.8910401

>>8910385
we are becoming putrid, we are rotting away, we have worms in our eyes and we are fucking decrepit ass niggas with 0 knowledge about math, we need someone to show us the light and repair our damaged brainlet pseudo-brains

>> No.8910404
File: 14 KB, 689x334, integral.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8910404

>> No.8910408

>>8910404
You forgot an x

>> No.8910776

>>8910332
>thinking about revising my calculus knowledge just to solve this
kek

>> No.8910825

>>8910332
I might, but it would take a while. My first instinct would be integration by parts with the top being u and the bottom being dv

>> No.8910833

>>8910385
Probably because it looks tedious as fuck

>> No.8910844

>>8910332
ya looks easy, at least initially

u=1-x^2, du/dx=-2x

and some subs writes in terms of u

then, not sure

>> No.8910847

>>8910825
m8 the reason that IBP has worked so well for you is because in your calc 2 class they give you very specific problems where you can just blindly IBP and *poof* it's solved

given some random complicated integral you can't just do that and hope to help anything. i mean jesus christ, the resulting integral from attempting that would be even more horrendous - just think about it.

>> No.8910856

>>8910844
ya.... no

>> No.8910863

>>8910856
perpahs a double subsititution of somekind to get started

>> No.8910870

>>8910332
the obvious first substitution is x = cos(u)
then use double angle sine identity for the bottom part and work out from there

>> No.8910875

>>8910404
the outermost -1 in the numerator is supposed to mean function inverse, not reciprocal.

>> No.8910877

>>8910870
You get nowhere

>> No.8910880

>>8910877
you would if it wasn't for >>8910875
that's idiotic notation and convinces me that you pulled this integral out of your ass, write it properly

>> No.8910903

>>8910875
what in the fuck exactly tells you that?

>> No.8910950

>>8910847
Then I don't know. The 2x right next to the sqrt(1-x^2) looks tempting, as does the imbedded arccos(sqrt(1-x^2)). But this problem is probably meant to mess with people who try to solve it; why else would they use such stupid notation? Still, for all intents and purposes, a series expansion would be most helpful for definite integration.

>> No.8911004

>>8910371
>brainlets use log for base 10 and not for base e
>brainlets still use ln

>> No.8911075

Put x=sin(t)

And watch everything unfold into simple terms

>> No.8911086

>>8910341
Underrated

>> No.8911308

>>8911086
It takes a second to disconnect it from its context. If it wasn't written as the answer to a math form as the first reply to that math form, I'd wager a guess that more people would get the joke.

>> No.8911310
File: 88 KB, 750x781, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8911310

>>8910341
ebin

>> No.8912099

>>8911086
>>8911310

i dont get it

>> No.8912101

>>8911308
oh ya.. never mind

>> No.8912115

>>8910332
Jesus Christ OP what a clusterfuck, did you make this in paint?

>> No.8913002
File: 10 KB, 636x266, integral_revised.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8913002

revised

>> No.8913016

>>8910332
Integration by parts is the obvious first step, its the only way to integrate that arccos and log

>> No.8913024

>>8910332
This actually just looks like a complicated u sub. The derivative of arccos is present, and of (1-x^2)

>> No.8913027

>>8910332
>log base e

>> No.8913046

>>8910332
The solution is F(x), where F(x) is defined as the solution to that particular integral.

>> No.8913053

>>8910385
>>8910401
It's fucking /pol/, those faggots are bringing all sorts of cancer with them.

>> No.8913459

>>8911075
Just listen to this cunt over here.
It's so fucking easy just substitute that in place of x.

>> No.8913469

>>8910385
Because it's a stupid question. I am not a freshman, if I'm going to piss away my nights evaluating antiderivatives they should either be unusual or have some further meaning than just "here's the antiderivative".

This is neither, it's just an obfuscated mess made up by somebody who doesn't even know what ln is

>> No.8914273

>>8910332
No. And I see no reason why I would want to do so.