Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

November 01, 2025, 03:31:04 pm

Author Topic: integration using linear substitution  (Read 2350 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

M-D

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Respect: 0
integration using linear substitution
« on: June 05, 2013, 07:19:20 pm »
0
I've got the following question which requires integration using linear substitution:



i don't know of which term it is best to do the substitution. should i make or should i let ? is there a set rule for which term should be substituted?

thanks

Alwin

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
  • Respect: +241
Re: integration using linear substitution
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2013, 07:26:37 pm »
0
I've got the following question which requires integration using linear substitution:



i don't know of which term it is best to do the substitution. should i make or should i let ? is there a set rule for which term should be substituted?

thanks

I actually wouldn't use linear substitution. Rather use partial fractions,



I think you can do it from here :)
2012:  Methods [48] Physics [49]
2013:  English [40] (oops) Chemistry [46] Spesh [42] Indo SL [34] Uni Maths: Melb UMEP [4.5] Monash MUEP [just for a bit of fun]
2014:  BAeroEng/BComm

A pessimist says a glass is half empty, an optimist says a glass is half full.
An engineer says the glass has a safety factor of 2.0

M-D

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Respect: 0
Re: integration using linear substitution
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2013, 07:31:31 pm »
0
thanks Alwin. I can do it using the partial fractions method however i just wanted to know that in general when doing linear substitutions which of the terms should be substituted? is there some type of rule that will work in all cases?

e^1

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Respect: +25
Re: integration using linear substitution
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2013, 07:47:54 pm »
+1
I'm not completely sure of this, but I take the one with the greater number (ie. the modulus of a power). For this one, , so I would use and go on from there. Someone check if this is wrong.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 07:55:24 pm by e^1 »

Lasercookie

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3167
  • Respect: +326
Re: integration using linear substitution
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2013, 08:07:34 pm »
+4
If you wanted to do it by linear subst, you could do something like this

and then make the substitution and note that and

thanks Alwin. I can do it using the partial fractions method however i just wanted to know that in general when doing linear substitutions which of the terms should be substituted? is there some type of rule that will work in all cases?
More or less what e^1 said.

Usually which one appears to immediately simplify your integrand the best (and hence will require the least amount of effort). Compare substituting u = 2x - 1 to u = x - 1. Wit u = 2x - 1, you simplify the numerator sure, but the denominator will probably end up quite yucky. That's enough to put me off and jump straight to the other option.

If you have the option of using either linear substitution or partial fractions, it'd be a similar toss up in trying to figure out which is the laziest method. Partial fraction questions won't always allow such flexibility though (e.g. when you can't use the trick of easily factorising the numerator to allow you to split up the fraction) .

b^3

  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3529
  • Overloading, just don't do it.
  • Respect: +631
  • School: Western Suburbs Area
  • School Grad Year: 2011
Re: integration using linear substitution
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2013, 08:14:06 pm »
+3
Normally what you do is select a that will allow you to make the integral into something that you can actually integrate. In some cases we get given an integral with terms on the top and the bottom of the fraction, so we normally select a that when differentiated, will get rid of one of these terms (e.g. , let so that the derivative gets rid of the expression, and gives us something that we are able to integrate).
Now in this case both of the expressions we have have the same largest power of , so we need to choose the one that gives us a simpler expression when you  rearrange it for and substitute it in. In this case, we don't want to complicate the bottom, rater we want to make the denominator simpler, so that we can expand the fraction out later, so that is why we let equal the bottom of the denominator.

e.g. If we tried to let equal the numerator, we'd run into problems.

But if we let equal the denominator:


Lazyred's method is probably the easiest.
If you wanted to do it by linear subst, you could do something like this

and then make the substitution and note that and
More or less what e^1 said.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 08:16:00 pm by b^3 »
2012-2016: Aerospace Engineering/Science (Double Major in Applied Mathematics - Monash Uni)
TI-NSPIRE GUIDES: METH, SPESH

Co-Authored AtarNotes' Maths Study Guides


I'm starting to get too old for this... May be on here or irc from time to time.