• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

HSC 2015 MX2 Integration Marathon (archive) (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon

Another way which may be a little faster is to divide top and bottom by e^(kx) and it's a log integral.
For that question, I would've done same:


However, can someone please explain how the arbitrary constant can differ by an ?
 

kawaiipotato

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
463
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2015
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon

For that question, I would've done same:


However, can someone please explain how the arbitrary constant can differ by an ?
It doesn't, collect the inside of your log function and use log rules to take out the division. you get something like + 1/k ln(e^kx) which simplifies to be x
 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon

24/7 Lost in algebra.





Edit #2: This could've sped up the start I suppose.

Edit #3: And everything else, since there's no infinite boundary
 
Last edited:

mreditor16

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
3,169
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon

I realise there is still an unresolved integral above. But really wanted to post this integral, which one of my students gave to me - I'm struggling to find a neat solution for it. Anyone able to help out?? :) ( And, before anyone asks, there is no typo ;) )



EDIT - Oopsss, forgot the dx
 
Last edited:

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon

I realise there is still an unresolved integral above. But really wanted to post this integral, which one of my students gave to me - I'm struggling to find a neat solution for it. Anyone able to help out?? :) ( And, before anyone asks, there is no typo ;) )



EDIT - Oopsss, forgot the dx
The numerator is very close to the derivative of the denominator. You could trying fiddling around with that in mind. (E.g. Replace the 3 in the numerator with -3, and compensate by adding a +6 as a second integral; this second integral can be done more neatly with t method than the first.)

Also, t-method works for the original integral of course, just not too "neat" perhaps.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon

I realise there is still an unresolved integral above. But really wanted to post this integral, which one of my students gave to me - I'm struggling to find a neat solution for it. Anyone able to help out?? :) ( And, before anyone asks, there is no typo ;) )



EDIT - Oopsss, forgot the dx
Another trick is to write the numerator as:

.

After finding the suitable A and B (by solving a pair of simultaneous equations), the integral will become , where D(x) is the denominator, which we can easily find.
 
Last edited:

mreditor16

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
3,169
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon

The numerator is very close to the derivative of the denominator. You could trying fiddling around with that in mind. (E.g. Replace the 3 in the numerator with -3, and compensate by adding a +6 as a second integral; this second integral can be done more neatly with t method than the first.)

Also, t-method works for the original integral of course, just not too "neat" perhaps.
I actually did that, but it is veryyy yuckkkkk. :/
 

mreditor16

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
3,169
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon

The numerator is very close to the derivative of the denominator. You could trying fiddling around with that in mind. (E.g. Replace the 3 in the numerator with -3, and compensate by adding a +6 as a second integral; this second integral can be done more neatly with t method than the first.)

Also, t-method works for the original integral of course, just not too "neat" perhaps.
Another trick is to write the numerator as:

.

After finding the suitable A and B (by solving a pair of simultaneous equations), the integral will become , where D(x) is the denominator, which we can easily find.
So when I did the bolded thing in the first quoted post yesterday, I actually just ended up with the situation described in the second quoted post. It still gets quite messy when you proceed onwards from the state of affairs raised in your second post.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: MX2 2015 Integration Marathon

So when I did the bolded thing in the first quoted post yesterday, I actually just ended up with the situation described in the second quoted post. It still gets quite messy when you proceed onwards from the state of affairs raised in your second post.
Really? By , I meant the derivative of . So in the second quoted post, basically only one "tedious" step is required, which is to solve a linear system of equations in two unknowns.

Once we do this, we're pretty much done, because the integral of the part is just .

i.e. , where (assuming I didn't make a silly mistake in solving the simultaneous equations, but you get the idea).

Then





.

I'd say that's not too messy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top