I n n → ∞ lim I n = = ∫ 0 1 x 1 + n 2 x 2 n d x ?
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.
Same way, i had seen such problem before , yet unfortunately, it didnt strike me before, i shall keep this in mind from now however
But i have been trying to see where the Euler equation applies here unsuccesfully for quite some time, how are the problems related
Log in to reply
Both involve ∫ 0 t 1 + ( d t d f ( t ) ) 2 d t I guess.
If you don't do the substitution that Raghav did then what you make this expression into an expression for time taken by the particle to cross a curve as shown by raghav in it's diagram, hence I said that was related, no use of euler equation here.
Log in to reply
Yes i got it, and you know, before too i tried to solve this one thinking of the perimeter, but i was constantly getting answer as 2 because i thought when the portion of line becomes perfectly vertical, perhaps one should ignore it , and rather treat it as a step graph since if i consider that as part of graph then for same x, there will be multiple y
but then you asked for the limiting value
Yes, I did in a similar way.
Excellent approach!,but why didnt you added a constant of integration while integrating n(x^(2n+1)).,,i think it should be there
Log in to reply
Oops,got the answer myself,adding a constant doesnt change the length of a curve,really very genius of you.but i would really like to know,how much time you spent on this problem,..
Log in to reply
Actually, I spent a lot of time on this problem, though not continuously, It stayed at the back of my head for about half a day. Then I got the answer, but I was not satisfied with my approach. In another question posted by Ronak, he said that that problem and this one were related. That's when this solution fully struck me.
Split the interval of integral into two subintervals [ 0 , 1 ] = [ 0 , 1 − ϵ ] + [ 1 − ϵ , 1 ] ϵ → 0 + For very large n in the first interval we have x 1 ≫ n 2 x 2 n and in the second n 2 x 2 n ≫ x 1 .
The integral becomes I = ∫ 0 1 − ϵ x 1 d x + ∫ 1 − ϵ 1 n x n d x I = 2 1 − ϵ + n + 1 n ( 1 − ( 1 − ϵ ) n + 1 ) Taking the limit of I with ϵ → 0 + and n → ∞ gives I = 3 .
I thought I was the only one who used this more 'straight forward' approach.
Nice solution :)
Log in to reply
Yeah, I was about to approach with this sort of solution when I realised n 2 x 2 n = 0 whenc ∣ x ∣ < 1 by L'Hopital and MCT, so I entered 0.5, ignoring that sudden jump at x = 1 .
Then, I thought it looked similar to the arclength of a parametrised function, so I tried to attack with that approach; I failed.
Finally, I remembered the Dirac delta function, and how its integral about x = 0 was equal to 1 . So I went ahead with this very "straightforward approach" :)
Log in to reply
What a coincidence! I also got it wrong initially because I didn't realize it blows up at 1. But subsequently, the first thing that did come to mind was the Dirac delta function(for obvious reasons) :)
In response to Kazem Sepehrinia: how did you solve the limit ?
Log in to reply
Hi Pankaj,
For evaluating second part of limit, we choose x such that n 2 x 2 n ≫ x 1 x ≫ n 2 n + 1 2 1 Or 1 − ϵ ≫ n 2 n + 1 2 1 ϵ ≪ 1 − n 2 n + 1 2 1 Worst case is ϵ = 1 − n 2 n + 1 2 1 1 − ϵ = n 2 n + 1 2 1 For which n → ∞ lim ( 1 − ( n 2 n + 1 2 1 ) n + 1 ) = n → ∞ lim ( 1 − ( n − 2 n + 1 2 n + 2 ) ) = 1
Why must 'E' tend to zero?
Same way .. , I solved in just 1 minutes !
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
I n = ∫ 0 1 x 1 + n 2 x 2 n d x x = t ⇒ I n = 2 ∫ 0 1 1 + n 2 t 2 ( 2 n + 1 ) d t ⇒ I n = 2 ∫ 0 1 1 + ( n t ( 2 n + 1 ) ) 2 d t
Now, consider the function n x ( 2 n + 1 ) . This function is the derivative of:
f ( x ) = 2 n + 2 n x ( 2 n + 2 )
Hence our integral is of the form:
I n = 2 ∫ 0 1 1 + ( d t d f ( t ) ) 2 d t
If we observe the above integral, we see that I n is simply twice the length of the curve f ( x ) between x = 0 and x = 1 .
Now, as n → ∞ ⇒ f ( x ) = 2 x ( 2 n + 2 )
If we draw the graph of this, it will look like this:
Where the blue line is x = 1 , the green line is y = 1 / 2 and the red line is the curve. Evidently, the total length of curve is 1 + 1 / 2 = 3 / 2 .
Hence, I n = 2 ( 3 / 2 ) = 3