Given that y 3 + y 2 x − x 2 y − x 3 = 1 , evaluate
∫ 0 ∞ ( y − x ) 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.
Can this be thought of as a way of rotating without actually rotating? Setting z=y-x is like creating a new axis (y=x) to integrate along.
Log in to reply
Technically, it's a shear, but shears and rotations share some physical properties (since a rotation is the composition of two shears), so I guess it can be thought of as "rotating without actually rotating"?
If you just want to compare my solution with the others', I think it's much easier to think about what our final integrals are doing with respect to the original coordinates. That is, all of us are finding the area bounded by the given curve, the y-axis, and the line y=x. The only difference is that their integrals use strips perpendicular to y=x while mine uses strips parallel to y=x.
If you want, you can actually use their rotation and rewrite the integral to use strips parallel to y=x and you'll find an integral that looks remarkably like mine (our variables will be related by a linear substitution). Meanwhile, my method cannot be directly used to use strips perpendicular to y=x.
Whenever we see this problem we are likely to think of polar coordinates.
Log in to reply
I'm not sure I follow. The others' solutions are rotations, which are constant translations in the θ -axis, but this is as close to polar coordinates as I can get, even conceptually. My solution, for instance, is completely Cartesian -- trying to do it in polar would only give you a headache.
By factorisation, we can conclude that: y − x = ( y + x ) 2 1
Now, this could have something to do with rotations. The intuition for this should arise from the fact that while rotating a curve by 45 degrees using a rotation matrix , we usually replace x and y with either the sum or the difference of x and y divided by the square root of 2. Also, simply sketching the function might have helped.
Hence:
2 2 ( y − x ) = 2 ( 2 y + x ) 2 1
Let's now try to describe the given curve in a coordinate system rotated by 45 degrees counterclockwise. The new coordinates are given as:
( x ′ y ′ ) = ( 2 2 − 2 2 2 2 2 2 ) ( x y )
And so, we can happily conclude that:
y ′ = 2 2 x ′ 2 1
Since y = x is the asymptote of our function (it is simply y = 0 rotated by 45 degrees counterclockwise), it is geometrically simple to conclude that our integral is equal to (if needed, I will supply a drawing when I have more time):
4 1 + 2 2 1 ∫ 2 2 ∞ x 2 1 d x which gives the anwser, 4 3 .
I was going to expand on my solution, but you've already covered all the bases. Maybe I'll add some graphics so that others can see what you are talking about.
Use the rotation transform to turn this implicit function by 4 5 degrees to the following explicit function of x only
y = 2 2 x 2 1
and integrate y = x from x = 0 to 2 1 , and the other from 2 1 to infinity.
Factorisation gives (y-x) = 1/(x+y)^2. Now, introduce u = x+y. This will give (y-x) = u - 2x. Plug this substitution into the above equality to find x as an explicit function of u.
You will get x = (u^3 - 1)/(2*u^2). Using this, find dx in terms of du.
You will get dx = du (u^3 + 2)/(2 u^3).
Originally we had to integrate (y - x) wrt x. This is equivalent to integrating 1/(x+y)^2 wrt x due to the factorisation process. This is also equivalent to integrating dx/u^2 with dx replaced by the above obtained equality which contains du.
Finally, the integral becomes (u^3 + 2)/(2*u^5) wrt u.
The limits are slightly tricky. But with a little bit of plugging in and checking, you'll find that y = 1 when x = 0... And y tends to x as x tends to infinity. So the lower limit is x + y = 1. And upper limit is infinite!
So if you do that final integral with limits 1 to infinite, you will get 0.75. Phew!
The polynomial y 3 + y 2 x − x 2 y − x 3 factors to ( y − x ) ( y + x ) 2 . Let u = y − x . The polynomial is then u ( u + 2 x ) 2 , so u ( u + 2 x ) 2 = 1 , or u = ( u + 2 x ) − 2 . d x d u = d x d ( u + 2 x ) − 1 = − ( u + 2 x ) − 2 ( d x d u + 2 ) = − u ( d x d u + 2 ) = − u d x d u − 2 u . Thus, u = − ∫ u d x d u d x − 2 ∫ u d x , so ∫ u d x = 2 1 ( ∫ u d u − u ) = 2 1 ( 2 u 2 − u ) . Now, to evaluate ∫ 0 ∞ ( y − x ) d x , the limits just need to be changed accordingly when substituting in u . The equation u = ( u + 2 x ) − 2 shows that if x = 0 , then u = 1 , and as x → ∞ , u → 0 . Therefore, ∫ 0 ∞ ( y − x ) d x = ∫ 1 0 u d x = − ∫ 0 1 u d x = − 2 1 ( 2 1 2 − 1 ) − 2 1 ( 2 0 2 − 0 ) = 2 1 ( 1 − 2 1 ) = 2 1 ⋅ 2 3 = 4 3 .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Note that ( y − x ) ( ( y − x ) + 2 x ) 2 = ( y − x ) ( y + x ) 2 = y 3 + y 2 x − x 2 y − x 3 = 1 so if we set z = y − x , then z ( z + 2 x ) 2 = 1 ⟹ x = 2 1 ( z − 1 / 2 − z ) ⟹ d x = 2 1 ( − 2 1 z − 3 / 2 − 1 ) d z We can now use substitution to evaluate ∫ 0 ∞ ( y − x ) d x = ∫ 1 0 z ⋅ 2 1 ( − 2 1 z − 3 / 2 − 1 ) d z = ∫ 0 1 ( 4 1 z − 1 / 2 + 2 1 z ) d z = 2 1 z 1 / 2 + 4 1 z 2 ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0 1 = 2 1 + 4 1 = 4 3