Yes well done guess it was too easy Try:
I did this a slightly different way:Since this thread is dead I thought I would post a question: Find:
This is my first attempt but the answer‘s slightly off. On the line marked , if the denominator is instead of then I think the final answer is correct but I can’t find the missing negative.Yes well done guess it was too easy Try:
I dont think you converted from theta to x correctly. Shouldn't , you did the reciprocal I think. Other than that you got it right.This is my first attempt but the answer‘s slightly off. On the line marked , if the denominator is instead of then I think the final answer is correct but I can’t find the missing negative.
Also @Qeru pls post more I was SOOOO close to getting . I used the right sub but my mind just died when I got to the part right before u-sub. I did the right u-sub as well I just did a dumb mistake with the differentials as its weird to work with andYes well done guess it was too easy Try:
Yes, you are correct. I’m so dumb!I dont think you converted from theta to x correctly. Shouldn't , you did the reciprocal I think. Other than that you got it right.
We can use the divide by on the top and bottom trick:Here's one:
reverse quotient rule:This is a cool one:
Ahahahaha...Here's one I found, might not be overly difficult. Given , evaluate
hahaha, amazing I did not know that. tbh I hate to admit it but I just looked up 'cool integrals' and found this.Ahahahaha...
Look at Post #153 of this thread, page 8. It was the first post I ever made on BoS! The notation I use is a bit complicated and could be expressed more clearly though.
Tbh I’m surprised I remembered doing it. I did that over a year ago.hahaha, amazing I did not know that. tbh I hate to admit it but I just looked up 'cool integrals' and found this.
It's more impressive than my first post which was about me complaining about not wanting to do study notes for economics lol.Tbh I’m surprised I remembered doing it. I did that over a year ago.