Can anyone evaluate: \int_{0}^{ \frac{ \pi }{2} } \frac{1}{1+(tanx)^{k}} \,dx Thanks. :)
MetroMattums Member Joined Apr 29, 2009 Messages 233 Gender Male HSC 2010 May 8, 2010 #1 Can anyone evaluate: Thanks.
Trebla Administrator Administrator Joined Feb 16, 2005 Messages 8,391 Gender Male HSC 2006 May 8, 2010 #2 Last edited: May 9, 2010
MetroMattums Member Joined Apr 29, 2009 Messages 233 Gender Male HSC 2010 May 8, 2010 #3 Many thanks.
shaon0 ... Joined Mar 26, 2008 Messages 2,029 Location Guess Gender Male HSC 2009 May 8, 2010 #4 MetroMattums said: Can anyone evaluate: Thanks. Click to expand... Let u=pi/2-x: du=-dx I=S [0,pi/2] dx/(1+(tan(x))^k) = -S [pi/2,0] du/(1+(cot(u))^k) = S [0,pi/2] (tan(u))^k du/((tan(u))^k+1) = S [0,pi/2] 1-(1/((tan(u))^k+1) du = S [0,pi/2] du -I Thus, 2I=pi/2 => I=pi/4 Nice Q. Edit: Beaten
MetroMattums said: Can anyone evaluate: Thanks. Click to expand... Let u=pi/2-x: du=-dx I=S [0,pi/2] dx/(1+(tan(x))^k) = -S [pi/2,0] du/(1+(cot(u))^k) = S [0,pi/2] (tan(u))^k du/((tan(u))^k+1) = S [0,pi/2] 1-(1/((tan(u))^k+1) du = S [0,pi/2] du -I Thus, 2I=pi/2 => I=pi/4 Nice Q. Edit: Beaten
D Drongoski Well-Known Member Joined Feb 22, 2009 Messages 4,255 Gender Male HSC N/A May 9, 2010 #5 Trebla said: Click to expand... Brilliant as always. By the way, shouldn't the f(a-x)dx in line 1 read f(b-x)dx ? Last edited: May 9, 2010
Trebla said: Click to expand... Brilliant as always. By the way, shouldn't the f(a-x)dx in line 1 read f(b-x)dx ?
Trebla Administrator Administrator Joined Feb 16, 2005 Messages 8,391 Gender Male HSC 2006 May 9, 2010 #6 Woops...thanks for pointing that out
C cutemouse Account Closed Joined Apr 23, 2007 Messages 2,250 Gender Undisclosed HSC N/A May 10, 2010 #7 Drongoski said: Brilliant as always. By the way, shouldn't the f(a-x)dx in line 1 read f(b-x)dx ? Click to expand... That's a very minor error. In the worst case scenario you could just write 'let a=b'...
Drongoski said: Brilliant as always. By the way, shouldn't the f(a-x)dx in line 1 read f(b-x)dx ? Click to expand... That's a very minor error. In the worst case scenario you could just write 'let a=b'...