There are two ways to proceed. We can solve this problem by direct calculation: First we compute an antiderivative of , then use it to compute , and finally use this expression to compute .

We have , so , and

.

The second method uses instead the fundamental theorem of calculus directly, and avoids having to compute any antiderivatives: Suppose is a continuous function on the interval and that is an antiderivative of . Recall that this simply means that for .

Suppose is a differentiable function, and is defined by . By the fundamental theorem of calculus, this means that , and therefore

using the chain rule. In the particular case that we are interested in, , , and , so

as before.

Problem 2.Find .

We use the substitution method to simplify the integrand. Although this can be done directly, I will do it in two stages for clarity. First, the most obvious difficulty with the expression at hand is the that appears as the argument in the trigonometric functions. This suggests to first try the substitution

.

Note that , and the integrand already contains a factor of , which is a good sign. To rewrite the integral in terms of , we note that if , then , while if , then , so the integral becomes

.

This expression is still complicated. There are two ways to proceed now. We may use that . This suggests the substitution . Then . When , we have , while when , we have , so the integral becomes

.

The second way to proceed is to use that . This suggests the substitution . Then . When , we have , while when , we have , so the integral becomes

,

as before.

I saw a slightly different presentation of the last approach in some of the solutions: Use the substitution . Then . If , then , while if , then . Then the integral becomes

This entry was posted on Friday, December 10th, 2010 at 11:42 am and is filed under 170: Calculus I. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

As suggested by Gerald, the notion was first introduced for groups. Given a directed system of groups, their direct limit was defined as a quotient of their direct product (which was referred to as their "weak product"). The general notion is a clear generalization, although the original reference only deals with groups. As mentioned by Cameron Zwa […]

A database of number fields, by Jürgen Klüners and Gunter Malle. (Note this is not the same as the one mentioned in this answer.) The site also provides links to similar databases.

As the other answer indicates, the yes answer to your question is known as the De Bruijn-Erdős theorem. This holds regardless of the size of the graph. The De Bruijn–Erdős theorem is a particular instance of what in combinatorics we call a compactness argument or Rado's selection principle, and its truth can be seen as a consequence of the topological c […]

Every $P_c$ has the size of the reals. For instance, suppose $\sum_n a_n=c$ and start by writing $\mathbb N=A\cup B$ where $\sum_{n\in A}a_n$ converges absolutely (to $a$, say). This is possible because $a_n\to 0$: Let $m_0

Consider a subset $\Omega$ of $\mathbb R$ of size $\aleph_1$ and ordered in type $\omega_1$. (This uses the axiom of choice.) Let $\mathcal F$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the initial segments of $\Omega$ under the well-ordering (so all sets in $\mathcal F$ are countable or co-countable), with the measure that assigns $0$ to the countable sets and $1 […]

Sure. A large class of examples comes from the partition calculus. A simple result of the kind I have in mind is the following: Any infinite graph contains either a copy of the complete graph on countably many vertices or of the independent graph on countably many vertices. However, if we want to find an uncountable complete or independent graph, it is not e […]

I think that, from a modern point of view, there is a misunderstanding in the position that you suggest in your question. Really, "set theory" should be understood as an umbrella term that covers a whole hierarchy of ZFC-related theories. Perhaps one of the most significant advances in foundations is the identification of the consistency strength h […]

I'll only discuss the first question. As pointed out by Asaf, the argument is not correct, but something interesting can be said anyway. There are a couple of issues. A key problem is with the idea of an "explicitly constructed" set. Indeed, for instance, there are explicitly constructed sets of reals that are uncountable and of size continuum […]

The question seems to be: Assume that there is a Vitali set $V$. Is there an explicit bijection between $V$ and $\mathbb R$? The answer is yes, by an application of the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem: there is an explicit injection from $\mathbb R$ into $\mathbb R/\mathbb Q$ (provably in ZF, this requires some thought, or see the answers to this question) […]

If a set $X$ is well-founded (essentially, if it contains no infinite $\in$-descending chains), then indeed $\emptyset$ belongs to its transitive closure, that is, either $X=\emptyset$ or $\emptyset\in\bigcup X$ or $\emptyset\in\bigcup\bigcup X$ or... However, this does not mean that there is some $n$ such that the result of iterating the union operation $n$ […]