Ah yes of course, that a little silly of meAre you sure?
My working got me down to
and so a can't be 0 since is undefined.
Use the substitution u^2=x+1 to give you ln(x+1)+c
I don't think that is correctUse the substitution u^2=x+1 to give you ln(x+1)+c
That is partially correct (even with the constant)
The solution depends on what the values of a,b and c are. More specifically, whether the discriminant is positive, zero, or negative.
the other solution is so painfullllThat is partially correct (even with the constant)
the other solution is so painfullll
I derived the reduction formula using trig identities etc. But got a final answer of 2^(n/2) I(0)--> So what would my final answer be? I(0) is just a constant isn't it? Probably did something wrong.
The answer is:I derived the reduction formula using trig identities etc. But got a final answer of 2^(n/2) I(0)--> So what would my final answer be? I(0) is just a constant isn't it? Probably did something wrong.
Yeah, I didn't recognise the cases. But my final reduction formula was I(n)=2I(n-2) ???The answer is:
This is because, (using sum to product formula)
So if n is even, it becomes I(0), and if n is odd, it becomes I(1)
You may have made a silly mistake, because:Yeah, I didn't recognise the cases. But my final reduction formula was I(n)=2I(n-2) ???
Your right, but for some reason I still can't find the mistake in mine :/ Its wayyy longer than your method so probably did make a mistake somewhere along the line.You may have made a silly mistake, because: