Remarks in italics are by me for extra explanation. These comments would not be necessary for full marks in an exam situation. Exercises taken from https://jpmccarthymaths.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/math6037-general-information/
Question 1
(a)
Now:
and
,
hence:
(b)
There is no obvious anti-derivative and there is no obvious manipulation hence we are looking for the function-dervative pattern to make a substitution (or else use the LIATE rule). Notice that the top is the derivative of the bottom. Hence we will let be the function; i.e. the bottom:
Let :
Now put everything back into the integrand, suppressing the limits:
Now, what do we have to raise to, to get
? i.e.
; well
. Hence
:
.
(c)
Again no obvious anti-derivative or manipulation hence we are looking at making a substitution.
There are a number of options here. One is the straight substitution . This will work out because
, just a constant. So a function,
and a multiple of it’s derivative are in the integrand. Alternatively the LIATE rule says pick
. Finally there are a number of other options once we know about terms of the form
. We will pursue this here.
Now , hence:
Now is just a real number or scalar and because integration is essentially addition, we can take it out as a common term:
Now
(*)
hence
Again ;
Question 2
(a)
According to the hint, we should choose :
Let :
Throwing this in, suppressing the limits for now:
(b)
Now using (*):
using a calculator.
Question 3
First off apologies: the middle term should have been .
This is a tough question but if you think carefully about your original definition of integration as finding the area under a curve, then we have that if then:
When ,
(in yellow, blue and red respectively). Hence the if we find the area under these curves between any two points bigger than 1, the area under a ‘smaller’ function will be smaller than the area under a ‘bigger’ one.
This is what we have to do here. The problem is between what limits should be pick. If divine inspiration doesn’t help I suggest solving the general problem; i.e. just let and
be anything (well careful: we want to integrate where
, so we want
and also
). Now writing the three functions in their power form (i.e.
):
To tidy up a little, using the log rule :
This is valid for all such that
. How about
?
Question 4
(a)
Not in tables but try a manipulation:
If you are comfortable feel free to use the identity :
:
.
(b)
No obvious anti-derivative or manipulation. Spot the function and derivative
.
Let :
Again suppressing the limits
Now using the calculator, tables, or preferably, the unit circle, and
:
(c)
There is no obvious anti-derivative (direct integration by rule) so we’re looking at a manipulation or a substitution. The trick here is to know that we know how to integrate:
,
and because is of the form
, we can complete the square and write
and make the substitution
.
Now find such that
Compare coefficients:
We need
and
Hence and
. Now:
Let :
Again suppressing the limits:
Now using a calculator, tables or preferably a little 30-60-90 right-angle-triangle diagram:
Question 5
Differentiation is linear. Let :
Hence
There are two ways to finish this question. One is to note that, by the Chain Rule:
so has anti-derivative
. This is the obvious way.
Alternatively rewrite the integral:
.
Now looking for the function-derivative pattern, let :
Suppressing the limits:
The ‘2’s cancel. Putting in the limits:
Now some facts about exponentials and logs:
,
,
.
Hence, with (multiply above and below by 2):
.
Question 6
(a)
We want to find such that
and
and hence
.
So . Now considering the integral
,
make the substitution :
:
Now using the tables:
(b)
Apologies – this question requires partial fractions – which we didn’t do until Week 2.
Question 7
Here we used the fact that . This is a general rule for real numbers:
.
Now, using this expansion and the fact that integration is linear (i.e. we can integrate term by term):
What function when differentiated gives ? The answer is
:
.
This is not in the tables. There is no obvious manipulation. Hence we may need a substitution. So looking for the function-derivative pattern, we see that has derivative
so we let
“function”;
(LIATE will also give you this – LIATE says takes the first thing on the list – the more complicated the better – and
is more complicated that
):
.
Putting this back into :
Again there is no obvious rule or manipulation so we are looking for a substitution. Convince yourself that is the appropriate substitution…
Hence
Now throwing this back into the original integral:
as is just some constant, which we can rename
for short.
Question 8
Not in the tables and no obvious manipulation. Again, convince yourself (function-derivative pattern or LIATE) that is an appropriate substitution:
.
Putting back into the integral and suppressing the limits:
.
Now one of the facts about logarithms is that:
;
.
Leave a comment
Comments feed for this article