Gloamy's Thread of Kweshchuns

[/0]

lol washers


washers



lol

[Gloamglozer]

nope i mean why didnt you use washers? i used washers :S. i thought the "solid" required was that formed outside the cone shape in the middle. the q was ambiguous.

I thought about using washers before I attempted the question because I was looking through the lecture notes, but I couldn't find a way to label the "outer" and "inner" solids.

oooo you do it the intuitive way. *high five* What Gloamy is doing is exactly that. Formally.

Really?

[Martoman]

Yeah that's what that calculus stuff is doing. Its basically en masse.

[Gloamglozer]

I'm having trouble finishing off this question (even though it's pretty easy for most people):



Using long division, I've managed to simplify it to:



Let

[/0]

You might have to try partial fractions

[Gloamglozer]

You might have to try partial fractions

Oh noes... I'm screwed.

On a side note, is there a way to relate with somehow with common factors?  Or would it be easier/better to use partial fractions like you said?

[Yitzi_K]

You might have to try partial fractions

Oh noes... I'm screwed.

On a side note, is there a way to relate with somehow with common factors?  Or would it be easier/better to use partial fractions like you said?

Looks like a partial fraction job to me. Not a very difficult one. Would certainly be way less complex than relating them using common factors (if that can even be done?)

[Gloamglozer]

You might have to try partial fractions

Oh noes... I'm screwed.

On a side note, is there a way to relate with somehow with common factors?  Or would it be easier/better to use partial fractions like you said?

Looks like a partial fraction job to me. Not a very difficult one. Would certainly be way less complex than relating them using common factors (if that can even be done?)

That's what I was wondering - whether or not it's possible to use common factors.  I thought I was missing something but I guess partial fractions would be the way to go.

[Mao]

there are no common factors.

[Ilovemathsmeth]

I think you should use partial fractions for this. I tried finding factors that are common to the numerator but I don't think it works for this type of question.

[Gloamglozer]

With regards to that question, I got the answer, but I just want to check my method to see if it is "mathematically sound" or if it was a fluke.  So the question was:



I simplified it to:



Then as suggested above, using partial fractions:





Sub x=0:



and



Sub x=1:

[moekamo]

it was a fluke, when doing the partial fractions you should have instead of

it just turned out that when you subbed numbers in you got the same result :S

[TrueTears]

The reason the answer was same because the number you subbed in was 1 lol so 1^3 = 1

[Gloamglozer]

it was a fluke, when doing the partial fractions you should have instead of

it just turned out that when you subbed numbers in you got the same result :S

Ah, that's where I made the mistake.  Cheers.

The reason the answer was same because the number you subbed in was 1 lol so 1^3 = 1

Then I guess it was truly a fluke because I always sub in 0 and 1 just to make sure.