This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Epic trick for jee
What if Π/6 was also aviable
Log in to reply
Then more work is needed. But when faced with a multiple-choice question, I like to do no more work than is needed to rule out all incorrect answers.
Yaa its a reasoning part but we can't rely upon these as we can face integer type ...BTW are u preparing for jee??
Log in to reply
No, it's been decades since I did any competing. I am a teacher in science who enjoys a good problem every now and then.
Relevant wiki: Differentiation Under the Integral Sign
Let I ( a ) be as follows:
I ( a ) ∂ a ∂ I ( a ) ⟹ I ( a ) a → ∞ lim I ( a ) ⟹ a → ∞ lim − tan − 1 a + C − 2 π + C C ⟹ I ( 1 ) = ∫ 0 ∞ x e − a x sin x d x = ∫ 0 ∞ ∂ a ∂ x e − a x sin x d x = ∫ 0 ∞ x − x e − a x sin x d x = − ∫ 0 ∞ e − a x sin x d x = 1 + a 2 e − a x ( a sin x + cos x ) ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0 ∞ = − 1 + a 2 1 = − ∫ 1 + a 2 1 d a = − tan − 1 a + C = 0 = 0 = 0 = 2 π = − tan − 1 1 + 2 π = 4 π See note. C is the constant of integration
Note:
J ⟹ a 2 J ⟹ J = − ∫ 0 ∞ e − a x sin x d x = a e − a x sin x ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0 ∞ + ∫ 0 ∞ a e − a x cos x = a e − a x sin x ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0 ∞ + a 2 e − a x cos x ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0 ∞ + ∫ 0 ∞ a 2 e − a x sin x = a 2 e − a x ( a sin x + cos x ) ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0 ∞ − a 2 J = e − a x ( a sin x + cos x ) ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0 ∞ − J = 1 + a 2 e − a x ( a sin x + cos x ) ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0 ∞ By integration by parts
Yes, this problem is a wonderful illustration on the importance of differentiation under the integral sign . Students might notice that if they tried to tackle this integral using by parts , they would end up with more monstrous integrals to deal with.
Food for thought:
Why did Chew-Seong start with
I
(
a
)
=
∫
0
∞
x
e
x
sin
a
x
d
x
, instead of say,
I
(
a
)
=
∫
0
∞
x
a
e
x
sin
x
d
x
or
I
(
a
)
=
∫
0
∞
x
e
a
x
sin
x
d
x
?
Bonus question:
Let
Ei
(
⋅
)
be a special exponential integral function:
Ei
=
−
∫
−
x
∞
t
e
−
t
d
t
.
Then prove that we can rewrite the indefinite integral
∫
x
e
x
sin
x
d
x
in terms of
Ei
.
Hint: e i x = cos x + i sin x .
How are you justifying reversing the order of summation and integration in line 4? You cannot use the Monotone Convergence Theorem, since the series is alternating. Nor can you use the Dominated Convergence Theorem, since ∑ n 2 n + 1 1 diverges.
Log in to reply
Don't quite understand what you mentioned. But it is ∑ ( 2 n + 1 ) ! 1 which converges.
Log in to reply
No. The integral I n = ∫ 0 ∞ ( 2 n + 1 ) ! x 2 n e − x d x = 2 n + 1 1 and you are wanting to sum n = 0 ∑ ∞ ( − 1 ) n I n in line 4. To use the DCT to reverse the order of summation and integration (obtaining an equation between lines 3 and 4), you would need something like the convergence of n = 0 ∑ ∞ ∫ 0 ∞ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ( − 1 ) n ( 2 n + 1 ) ! x 2 n e − x d x ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ = n = 0 ∑ ∞ I n which does not exist.
Although it is legitimate to interchange the integral and the limit (you do get the right answer), the reason for being able to do so needs a little work...
Plz will u rewrite that solution again bcoz it is not clearly visible
Log in to reply
My discussion with Mark Hennings was for a wrong solution I posted earlier. The one shown here is correct and not related to the discussion.
"By Part Takes Forever!" The correct terminology here would be "Integration by parts", as several respondents wrote correctly. I don't care what part of the world you are from, you need to use the right mathematical terminology if you are writing in English. I would also suggest to try solving this problem by using complex variables, contour integration, and the residue theorem in complex analysis (developed by the Frenchman Cauchy, as did much of this subject).
Log in to reply
If using complex variables works, it would entail drawing diagrams to show what the right contour is and to show where the poles are inside the contour and on it. Clever use of limits as the radii of parts of the contour approach infinity or zero is also required. Here is not a good place to draw the diagrams. I love complex analysis because it is quite visual.
Log in to reply
I studied complex analysis in two different courses in graduate school. In the first one (the larger one) we had several Chinese students who often discussed things in Chinese. However, in the midst of this, they said "removable singularity" in English in the midst of the Chinese. I asked them why, and one man explained to me that they did not know the Chinese expression for "removable singularity", so they just used the English phrase. I loved this answer because I like learning about other cultures, and learning of the difficulties of going to college in the USA, Canada, England, etc., when your native language is Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi, Vietnamese, etc.
can you plz explain how you wrote 5th step from the forth one ? plz i am not able to understand this fenyman trick ! plz help sir !
Log in to reply
I have added a note. Hope it is useful.
Log in to reply
thank you very much for explaining sir, you rock !!
Can you explain why does we take the 'limit' of I(a)? @Chew-Seong Cheong
Log in to reply
We need to have a value for I ( a ) , so that we can find the value of C .
Another solution using laplace transform 0 ∫ ∞ t e t sin ( t ) d t = s → 0 lim 0 ∫ ∞ t e − s t e − t sin ( t ) d t = s → 0 lim ℓ ( t e − t sin ( t ) ) = s → 0 lim ( 2 π − arctan ( s + 1 ) ) = 2 π − 4 π = 4 π
That's a good approach, using the Laplace Transform, named for the Frenchman Pierre-Simon Laplace and hence capitalized. It also shows the connection of this problem with complex analysis because taking inverse Laplace Transforms usually involves (in the nitty-gritty) using complex variables, contour integration, and the residue theorem. Undergraduate students get to bypass this because they (and we) can use tables of Laplace Transform pairs to bypass all of that. This works because the Laplace transform and the inverse transform between f(t) and its transform F(s) are unique. In other words, "it goes both ways".
Log in to reply
Here is a good way to remember how terminology goes in mathematics. With just one exception, ALL of the theorems, axioms, lemmas, procedures, functions, equations, and densities that are named for PEOPLE are always capitalized. The lone exception is "abelian", named for Niels Henrik Abel, and abelian got this way just because it is so common. For examples of the contrary, there are Cauchy's residue theorem, the Cauchy-Riemann equations, several Euler theorems and functions, the Fourier transform, the Gaussian density, Hamiltonians, the Jacobean, the Laplace transform, Lesbegue integration, Newton's procedure, the Pascal triangle, the Schwartz inequality, the Tchebyshev inequality, and the Von Neumann procedure in computers.
Log in to reply
Other important items in mathematics are named for the Bernoullis, Carmichael, Gödel, Heaviside, Jordan, Lagrange, Leibnitz, Markov, Maclauren, Rayleigh, and Taylor. This goes to show you that the best procedure is to capitalize ALL of these names, and we would forgive you for "Abelian". There is even something, very useful in physics, that could be called the Lorentz - Fitzgerald - Einstein transform.
Relevant; Leibniz Formula for π
By Taylor expansion we know that
sin x = n = 0 ∑ ∞ ( 2 n + 1 ) ! ( − 1 ) n x 2 n + 1 = x − 3 ! x 3 + 5 ! x 5 − ⋯
which implies
∫ 0 ∞ e − x x sin x = ∫ 0 ∞ n = 0 ∑ ∞ e − x ( 2 n + 1 ) ! ( − 1 ) n x 2 n
It is easy to see (using integration by parts and induction) that for m ∈ N
∫ 0 ∞ e − x x m = m !
Given that the series converges (by the ratio test) to an integrable limit we can change the order of integration using Fubini's Theorem
∫ 0 ∞ n = 0 ∑ ∞ e − x ( 2 n + 1 ) ! ( − 1 ) n x 2 n = n = 0 ∑ ∞ ∫ 0 ∞ e − x ( 2 n + 1 ) ! ( − 1 ) n x 2 n = ∫ 0 ∞ e − x ( 1 − 3 ! x 2 + 5 ! x 4 − … = 1 − 3 1 + 5 1 − ⋯ = 4 π ,
Where the last equality holds by the Leibniz formula for π .
Precisely the same solution as mine
consider I(a)= x e x s i n ( a x ) now integral of this withrespect to dx will be a fn of "a" partial differentiatin wrt "a" I'(a) =
now apply by parts.. and then get I(a) a=1 at last
This solution uses methods of complex analysis related to Cauchy's Residue Theorem. In particular, we make use of Cauchy's Theorem.
Let I = ∫ 0 ∞ x e x sin x d x . Then let f + ( z ) = z 1 e ( i − 1 ) z and f − ( z ) = z 1 e ( − i − 1 ) z .
Observe that I = I m ( ∫ 0 ∞ f + ( z ) d z ) = − I m ( ∫ 0 ∞ f − ( z ) d z ) .
Consider for ϵ , R > 0 , γ the contour in the complex plane consisting of:
γ ϵ , a quarter arc of radius ϵ , centred at zero,
γ R , a quarter arc of radius R , centred at zero,
and the real and imaginary line segments connecting them,
the whole contour in positive orientation.
Then it follows that: ∫ γ R f + ( z ) d z + ∫ γ ϵ f + ( z ) d z + ∫ ϵ R f + ( z ) d z + ∫ i R i ϵ f + ( z ) d z = ∫ γ f + ( z ) d z .
But ∫ γ f + ( z ) d z = 0 as f + is holomorphic on γ , and I m ( ∫ ϵ R f + ( z ) d z ) = I m ( ∫ i R i ϵ f + ( z ) d z ) = I as ϵ → 0 , R → ∞ , which we can see by applying the substitution z = i x to the second integral.
Hence we have I m ( ∫ γ R f + ( z ) d z ) + I m ( ∫ γ ϵ f + d z ) + 2 I = 0 (as ϵ → 0 , R → ∞ )
It remains to find lim R → ∞ ∫ γ R f + ( z ) d z and lim ϵ → 0 ∫ γ ϵ f + ( z ) d z .
Indeed we have ∣ ∣ ∫ γ R f + ( z ) d z ∣ ∣ ≤ 2 π R ∣ ∣ f + ∣ ∣ ≤ 2 e R π as ∣ ∣ e i z ∣ ∣ is bounded above by one on the upper half plane. Hence as R → ∞ , ∫ γ R f + ( z ) d z → 0 .
Now we apply the substitution z = ϵ e i t : 0 ≤ t < 2 π to get ∫ γ ϵ f + ( z ) d z = ∫ 2 π 0 ϵ e i t 1 e ϵ ( i − 1 ) e i t × ϵ i e i t d t = − i ∫ 0 2 π e ϵ ( i − 1 ) e i t d t ( ∗ ) .
Taking ϵ → 0 we get ( ∗ ) → − i ∫ 0 2 π d t = − i 2 π .
Putting it all together: I m ( 0 ) + I m ( − i 2 π ) + 2 I = 0 ⟹ I = 4 π
Max value of the function is 1 and it is decreasing so area must be <1 opt D
Just use diff under imtegral sign by replacing sinx by sin ax
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Lazy solution
Because sin x < x for x > 0 ∫ 0 ∞ x e x sin x < ∫ 0 ∞ x e x x = ∫ 0 ∞ e − x = 1 . Of the four choices given, only π / 4 is less than one.