MedVision ad

Integration proofs help (1 Viewer)

LOL™

I invented "lol"
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
90
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
Hey!! can anyone help me with this? I gave up after like 1/2 hr :cold:

If f(x) = f(a - x), prove that


thanks
 

MOP777

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
20
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Pretty sure this is correct. I did skip a few steps but it's all correct as far as I know.
 

LOL™

I invented "lol"
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
90
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
How did you get from the 4th to the 5th line
I dont get how:
<a href="http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=2\int_{0}^{a}xf(a-x) = I" target="_blank"><img src="http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?2\int_{0}^{a}xf(a-x) = I" title="2\int_{0}^{a}xf(a-x) = I" /></a>
Because that wouldn't be f(a-x)
 

MOP777

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
20
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
because f(a-x) = f(x) as originally stated, and as stated in the proof.
 

LOL™

I invented "lol"
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
90
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
But f(a-x) would be
<a href="http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\int_{0}^{a}(a-x)f(a-x)" target="_blank"><img src="http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\int_{0}^{a}(a-x)f(a-x)" title="\int_{0}^{a}(a-x)f(a-x)" /></a>

rather than this
How did you get from the 4th to the 5th line
<a href="http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=2\int_{0}^{a}xf(a-x) = I" target="_blank"><img src="http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?2\int_{0}^{a}xf(a-x) = I" title="2\int_{0}^{a}xf(a-x) = I" /></a>
 

MOP777

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
20
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
You split the (a-x) function. Because it is (a-x)*(f(a-x)) it equals a*(f(a-x)) - x*(f(a-x))

Do you get that? I'll give you an example without variables. (5-2) *(f(x)) = 5*(f(x)) - 2*(f(x))
Do you understand?
 

LOL™

I invented "lol"
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
90
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
You split the (a-x) function. Because it is (a-x)*(f(a-x)) it equals a*(f(a-x)) - x*(f(a-x))

Do you get that? I'll give you an example without variables. (5-2) *(f(x)) = 5*(f(x)) - 2*(f(x))
Do you understand?
Yea i get that of course but how does


Because its clearly not f(a - x)
 

MOP777

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
20
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Because f(a-x) = f(x)
ie


I don't know how to explain it any clearer.

excuse the
Code:
< br / >
I can't get rid of them
 
Last edited:

LOL™

I invented "lol"
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
90
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
Because f(a-x) = f(x)
ie


I don't know how to explain it any clearer.

excuse the
Code:
< br / >
I can't get rid of them
lol
the point i don't get is how that is = I
because the function there lets call it g(x) is xf(x)
therefore g(a-x) would have to be (a-x)f(a-x) and not xf(a-x)
Do you get what im trying to ask ? lol sorry
 

MOP777

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
20
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
I do get what you're saying
but (a-x) TIMES f(a-x)
= (a TIMES f(a-x)) MINUS (x TIMES f(a-x))

you split the a minus x into two separate integrals.
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,386
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Would this approach help?

 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
You've created an extra factor of x in the integrand of the RHS of your final line trebla.
 

jet

Banned
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
3,148
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
lol
the point i don't get is how that is = I
because the function there lets call it g(x) is xf(x)
therefore g(a-x) would have to be (a-x)f(a-x) and not xf(a-x)
Do you get what im trying to ask ? lol sorry
Becuase when they refer to f(x) they aren't talking about the integral, they're just talking about the function inside the integrand. So, since f(a -x) = f(x) then


The fact that the first poster replaced every instance of x by a-x at the start of his proof uses a completely different rule altogether.
 
Last edited:

LOL™

I invented "lol"
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
90
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
Becuase when they refer to f(x) they aren't talking about the integral, they're just talking about the function inside the integrand. So, since f(a -x) = f(x) then


The fact that the first poster replaced every instance of x by a-x at the start of his proof uses a completely different rule altogether.
ah ok i think i get what you're trying to say now. So in the question when its says given that f(x) = f(a-x), it is actually saying that those 2 functions are equal rather than refering to the general rule.
So then in the function xf(a-x), you can simply replace the f(a-x) by f(x) so then it would become xf(x)? right?

anyway, thanks for that everybody.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top