Calculus oppo

"traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn" (el-peasant) 01/29/2017 at 17:36 • Filed to: None

0

7

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 > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 01/29/2017 at 17:38

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 > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 01/29/2017 at 17:40

0

https://media.tenor.co/images/3978d2e2df94eca4bc457522c4df6c62/raw

bob and john > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 01/29/2017 at 17:47

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 > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 01/29/2017 at 17:47

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 > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 01/29/2017 at 18:04

0

Is that weird al

Phyrxes once again has a wagon! > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 01/29/2017 at 19:08

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 > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 01/29/2017 at 20:49

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