HSC 2012-14 MX2 Integration Marathon (archive) (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Makematics

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
1,829
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: MX2 Integration Marathon

The fraction is still a unit that remains intact - it doesn't need to be broken up. As long as you think of the fraction as a variable itself, its exactly the same.
Seriously, if anyone sees expanding [1+5/(x+2)]^5 as being more difficult that (u+5)^5, they are going to struggle with a lot in Extension 2.
lol wow calm down, i understand the fraction doesn't have to be broken down, i'm just saying your expansion will look much messier than my expansion. i understand that the algebraic skill required for both expansions is similar...
 

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: MX2 Integration Marathon

lol wow calm down, i understand the fraction doesn't have to be broken down, i'm just saying your expansion will look much messier than my expansion. i understand that the algebraic skill required for both expansions is similar...
Calm down?? You're completely misreading me.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: MX2 Integration Marathon





No room for the +c :/
 

Kipling

New Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
29
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: MX2 Integration Marathon

Integrate: (7x-3)/(6+4x-x^2)^0.5
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Re: MX2 Integration Marathon

The following question is set in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space with the standard coordinates.





















At some y, I think the notation is (x,k,z), then there will be a 2d curve

So treating y like a constant, we find the area of a general cross section.



Then collecting all the cross sections:



Since they are definite integrals of the same thing but different variables.





Is that all? No rigour issues or anything?





Is this right so far?
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: MX2 Integration Marathon





















At some y, I think the notation is (x,k,z), then there will be a 2d curve

So treating y like a constant, we find the area of a general cross section.



Then collecting all the cross sections:



Since they are definite integrals of the same thing but different variables.





Is that all? No rigour issues or anything?





Is this right so far?
Pretty much, I would prefer if you did the work to show the epsilon term tends to zero, this is not too hard.

Also it is probably better to describe your slices as being perpendicular to the y-axis (rather than the x-y plane), ie every point in a slice has the same y-coordinate, this makes it unambiguous.

What is nice is that these volume computations are standard mx2 work, even if the notation for the solids is slightly beyond.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
2,225
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2012
Re: MX2 Integration Marathon

If you differentiate twinkie's answer you get the integrand.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
2,225
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2012
Re: MX2 Integration Marathon

Somehow the dx flew up top.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top