by "traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn" (el-peasant)
Published 01/29/2017 at 17:36
by "traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn" (el-peasant)
Published 01/29/2017 at 17:36
No Tags
STARS: 0
In the middle. (U-1)/U can be written as (u/u) - (1/u). So then why does u/u cancel out to be U, not 1?
"tpw_rules" (tpwrules)
01/29/2017 at 17:38, STARS: 0
Seems to be a typo. The u in 5 gets integrated to a u in 6 and that only makes sense if it was a 1 in step 5, which it should have been.
"Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire" (arch-duke-maxyenko)
01/29/2017 at 17:40, STARS: 0
https://media.tenor.co/images/3978d2e2df94eca4bc457522c4df6c62/raw
"bob and john" (bobandjohn)
01/29/2017 at 17:47, STARS: 1
they sort of...mistyped it.
integral of U is (u^2)/2 integral of 1 is U
(i’m going to use ~ for the integral sign, just to make it easier to type)
so it SHOULD be: ~(1- 1/u)du
= ~ 1 du - ~1/u du
= U +c - ~1/u du
= U + c -ln [U] + c
cs are both constants, so you can add them together
= U - ln [U] +c
"MM54" (mm54mk2)
01/29/2017 at 17:47, STARS: 0
That doesn’t make sense.
The end result is right though, I think they meant to have the integrand in step 5 be (1-1/u) which makes sense then when they integrate back into ‘u’ for step 6.
"S65" (granthp)
01/29/2017 at 18:04, STARS: 0
Is that weird al
"Phyrxes once again has a wagon!" (phyrxes)
01/29/2017 at 19:08, STARS: 1
http://www.integral-calculator.com/
Let the magic happen, their explanation is much better than the one above.
"FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com" (alphaass)
01/29/2017 at 20:49, STARS: 0
Like others said, it’s a typo in line 5. Look at line 6 and you can see that they’ve done the integral as if it was indeed 1 in line 5. If it was really a “u” on line 5, line 6 would be 0.5*u^2 - ln|u| + C_1