I'm deriving something that I feel is cool, and I am so close to the answer, but i'm getting both the positive as well as a negative value as an answer. I need some solid proof to reject one of the answers as the internet only gives the positive value as an answer...Help?
The question is :
And I have solved it like this:
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Just looking at the graph, you know that the answer has to be positive. I will look at your work later...
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher I thought so too, but by looking at the graph, we can say that the first positive area is large...But if the limit continues upto infinity, we can't say that the total sum is positive, can we?
Log in to reply
Oh sure we can... each region above the axis is a little larger than the next region below.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher and @Pi Han Goh ...But although the first positive area is more than the first negative area....i can similarly argue, that the next positive area is less than the first negative area....which goes on upto infinity...?
I get thatLog in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Relevant.
Nope.Log in to reply
Your working is right. It's easy to show why the answer must be positive by looking at the first positive area and you can see that the curve becomes more erratic.
I don't really get what you are doing. Since your t is an imaginary quantity, what do you mean by ∫0∞...dt ? It's better to use the substitution t=x2, and things fall into place nicely.
Log in to reply
Hmm with the substitution t=x^2 we cant use gamma theorem...for that we need a term of e^-x where x is the variable...thats why i had to take t as an imaginary quantity, but i dont think complex or real makes any difference, does it??
Log in to reply
Sure you can use the gamma function with the substitution t=x2... just look in Pi Han Goh's link under "generalization".
Log in to reply