leehuan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Messages
- 5,805
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
I suggest double angle and then immediately use complex exponential without hesitation. Time will be of the essence for 2016ers.
The first one is easily handled by a remapping (substitution) of x -> 9/x
If n is odd: πCompute:
That's not possible. Unless you interpret the exponentiation the other way around (which I cannot, as you have clearly and explicitly wrapped it in brackets), the integral is zero.But Paradoxica answer of my second Integral is
This is done using LaTeX. You can find a Short Guide to LaTeX here, which outlines how to use it on this site: http://community.boredofstudies.org/14/mathematics-extension-2/234259/short-guide-latex.html .Btw, this is my first time posting, how do you format the equations?
Lol ripView attachment 33308 latex code crashed half way through I might have did the long way
No need to even take limits, because the integrand is a continuous function on the domain of integration (if we want we can define appropriate left- or right-hand values that make the function continuous there; there isn't any problem because the denominator will always be greater than 1, so there's no singularity).Is it really that easy
Also what would you compare it with?
Naturally inclined to use the "order-bound" comparison test my lecturer taught
This is not correct. (The flaw in your logic is that when x=1 at the endpoint of the interval, n^2.x^(2n-2) does NOT tend to zero, in fact it gets very large!) This endpoint dragging your function up is enough to make the limiting value of the integral more than 1.Answer is 1
As n approaches infinity, 2n-2 approaches 0 much faster than n^2 goes to infinity. Therefore as n approaches infinity, n^2.x^(2n-2) approaches 0. Hence, the integral simply becomes 1.
Btw, this is my first time posting, how do you format the equations?
Are there any useful sufficient conditions that'd make the arc length of the limit curve equal the limit of the arc lengths?This is not correct. (The flaw in your logic is that when x=1 at the endpoint of the interval, n^2.x^(2n-2) does NOT tend to zero, in fact it gets very large!) This endpoint dragging your function up is enough to make the limiting value of the integral more than 1.
In fact, the limit is 2. A nonrigorous but convincing way of seeing this is observing that the arc length of a curve y=f(x) between 0 and 1 is given by
(You can prove this by summing the lengths of the infinitesimal line segments and using the definition of the Riemann integral.)
Then the integral in this question is just the arc length of y=x^n between x=0 and x=1.
For large n, this curve gets smaller away from x=1, and increases more sharply to reach the endpoint (1,1). Visually, for large n, it tends to the mirrored L-shape consisting of the line segment between (0,0) and (1,0) and the line segment between (1,0) and (1,1), each of which has length 1.
I.e it's arclength tends to 2.
This argument would be convincing to any mathematician because of how well behaved the curve y=x^n is, but in general you have to be quite careful when making statements about the limiting arc lengths of a sequence of curves that approximates a limit curve, so it is a worthwhile exercise to try to prove that the limit is 2 analytically. (I.e. using inequalities etc.)