∫
0
6
x
+
x
+
x
+
…
d
x
=
B
A
,
where A and B are positive coprime integers. Find A + B .
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.
You could have ignored the quadratic by
( d y d ) y 2 − y = x ( d y d ) ⟶ d x = d y ( 2 y − 1 )
Thus
∫ 0 6 y d x ⟹ ∫ 1 3 y ( 2 y − 1 ) d y ⟶ ∣ 1 3 3 2 y 3 − 2 y 2 = 3 4 0
Log in to reply
Good one
This method will give 4 different combinations of upper and lower limits. (3,0) (-2,0) (3,1) (-2,1) Out of these 4, 3 are giving positive result. Which is going to have 3 possible solutions of the problem
why does it change from 0 and 6 to 3 and 1? I understand the 3, but how do you get the 1?
Log in to reply
well, when we made a U-substitution in this case a y substitution of y 2 − y = x i plugged in the value of upper and lower limit of x, to get the new value of y Plugging the upper limit y 2 − y = 6 ⟹ y = 3 plugging the lower limit
y 2 − y = 0 ⟹ y = 1
@Trevor B. I did the same thing as @Beakal Tiliksew but used 0 instead of 1 as my lower limit of integration since it was more intuitive..It seems that both 1 and 0 can be the value of the infinite nested radical of 0 as they both satisfy y 2 = x + y for x = 0 .
Log in to reply
You have to be careful to ensure that you chose the correct path when you do a variable substitution. This is less of an issue when you are integrating in 1 dimension, though you have to be careful with substitutions like u = x 1 .
When one makes a u-substitution all the old instances of the variable must change, as we have introduced a new function, Much like negative time, 0 is in this case is an extraneous solution, So i guess the @Trevor B. goes around this ambiguity
Log in to reply
I knew that you could do it this way, but I'm not 100% sure as to how to determine what the limits are coming from the substitution. For example, on the problem I submitted yesterday, my method was to substitute the whole thing in a u -substitution , solve for d x in terms of d u , and find the indefinite integral and plug back in the original limits.
I do not see why 0 has to be an extraneous solution.After running a few computations on my computer it seems that the infinite nested radical of 0 does seem to approach 1 ,but that does not mean it is 1 at 0.That would mean incorrectly assuming the function is continuous at x = 0 which it doesn't seem to be. This plot should demonstrate what I mean.
Log in to reply
@Thaddeus Abiy – Indeed, the function x + x + x + … is discontinuous at x = 0 , having a value of 0 . From the right side, the limit is 1 , while from the left side, the limit doesn't exist (because the function is also not defined). However, you should take the value 1 as the lower limit of the integration, because it's the value of the right limit.
i did the same way why is my answer different hey,, AS it is a quadratic the answer 27 is also possible 43 and 27 is the answer
could u please tell me formula for integrating sq.root of u
Log in to reply
∫ u d u = ∫ u 2 1 d u = 2 3 1 u 2 1 + 1 + C = 3 2 u 2 3 + C
Good one,upvoted.Would have been better had u explained why u neglected the other root(in considering the other root, A/B<0 contradictory to the given conditions of the problem).
I programmed in C to find out the result, and I was right haha :))
Alright, I'm pretty much doing the same thing as @Trevor B. , except I'm going to just show that there is another solution but it's negative. Here we go. First start off by setting ( x + ( x . . . ) ) = y . To solve in terms of x , simply square both sides to get x + y = y 2 . We can set up the quadratic function, but unlike Trevor's solution, I will consider what happens if you use ± instead of just + . When you do this, you get 2 1 ± ( 4 x + 1 ) . The reason that there are two different cases for the graph is that it's a parabola with a horizontal axis of symmetry which isn't a function itself. So we have two cases for functions:
Integrate 2 1 − ( 4 x + 1 ) which is − 7 2 2 . This obviously cannot be the answer, but it could be a clue as to why π isn't equal to 7 2 2 . @Calvin Lin you should check it out! Anyways, next case.
We integrate 2 + ( 4 x + 1 ) . This produces 3 4 0 , which is positive, and thus a + b = 4 3 . And we're finished. :D
You have a bit of a problem here @Finn Hulse . You are saying that when you expand y = x + x + x + … , you will get to y 2 − y − x = 0 . This is correct. But here's the mistake.
Suppose you are trying to find 6 + 6 + 6 + … . y y y 2 y 2 − y − 6 ( y + 2 ) ( y − 3 ) = 6 + 6 + 6 + … = 6 + y = 6 + y = 0 = 0
You are saying that the above can have a negative solution, but it won't work in the integral. That isn't true. Remember that k is non-negative for all non-negative k . The negative solution you could get is extraneous. 4 = − 2 . That's why I omitted the possibility of a negative solution in the quadratic formula.
You say that because ∫ 0 6 2 1 − 4 x + 1 d x = 7 − 2 2 , π is not equal to 7 2 2 . Can you explain this please? The only way to get π with square roots (that I can remember as of now) is finding 6 ζ ( 2 )
Log in to reply
Uh... I'm pretty sure I was just splitting the parabola formed into two respective functions and integrating for each. It does matter if you're graphing it correctly.
Log in to reply
What I'm saying is that you can't say there is a negative solution. The solution is the graph of y 2 − y = x in the first quadrant, or you'd have imaginary or extraneous solutions.
Can you please explain the thing about π please? To me it just seems like a coincidence.
Log in to reply
@Trevor B. – Okay, in general, calculus allows you to integrate complex/imaginary functions on the real coordinate system. For example, the line x = y 2 looks like a parabola on its side. If you're asked to integrate, both cases are considered. About the π thing. @Calvin Lin was looking for a proof that π does not equal 7 2 2 . I wondered if somehow the fact that that was the imaginary integral of the function could mean something and lead to a possible proof.
let t = under root x+....... and so on (i.e. whatever function we have to integrate). then, t
2 = x + t .
implies t
2 - t = x...... hence (dx/dt) = 2t - 1. as such...... we may put dx = dt
(2t-1). now this would yield
I (the required integral) =( (integration of) t
(2t-1)) dt = integration of 2((t)
2) - t = (2/3) t *3 - (t
2)/2. proceeding further I got I= 126. whats wrong with my approach please tell me!
why pi is not equal to 22/7 is what makes your solution nique
I think the first thing to solve the problem is to show that x + x + x + ⋯ exists. See here .
That isn't very difficult. It is easy to prove that the function is monotonically increasing and is convergent at 0 and 6 .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
First simplify the radical expression.
Let y = x + x + x + … . y y y 2 y 2 − y y 2 − y − x = x + x + x + … = x + y = x + y = x = 0 You can use the quadratic formula to solve for y in terms of x . y = 2 1 + 1 + 4 x Now resubstitute this into the integral. ∫ 0 6 2 1 + 4 x + 1 d x = ∫ 0 6 2 1 d x + ∫ 0 6 2 4 x + 1 d x = 3 + ∫ 0 6 2 4 x + 1 d x Make a u -substitution to solve the integral. Let u = 4 x + 1 . Then d u = 4 d x . ∫ 0 6 2 4 x + 1 d x = 4 1 ∫ 1 2 5 2 u d u = 8 1 ∫ 1 2 5 u d u = 8 1 × 3 2 u 3 ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 1 2 5 = 1 2 1 × u 3 ∣ ∣ ∣ 1 2 5 = 1 2 1 × ( 1 2 5 − 1 ) = 1 2 1 2 4 = 3 3 1 Adding back in the 3 from earlier, 3 + 3 3 1 = 3 4 0 . Thus, A = 4 0 and B = 3 , so A + B = 4 3