Definitely could simplify inside brackets but it looks decently legitOkay here’s my answer but it looks very VERY wrong. Don’t mock me!
Definitely could simplify inside brackets but it looks decently legitOkay here’s my answer but it looks very VERY wrong. Don’t mock me!
It’s wrong. Just realised I stuffed up in my solution .Okay here’s my answer but it looks very VERY wrong. Don’t mock me!
Be back in 30mins once I type this up lol@Qeru latex a solution lol
Yup nice now for a nasty one:
Nice. I did the same initial sub then got to and used a t-sub. Your method is much better and I suspect I have made an error somewhere.Let
Let
Ill save the partial fractions working.
Drawing up a triangle we find:
So:
I could have very easily made a mistake whether in latex or just trying to evaluate to integral so let me know if you find any
I think you need uni level maths to do that.I'm afraid I have to step in here.
What is 1+1
with the s sub why when differentiated sin is negative cosLet
Let
Ill save the partial fractions working.
Drawing up a triangle we find:
So:
I could have very easily made a mistake whether in latex or just trying to evaluate to integral so let me know if you find any
Pretend you didnt see that . Also yes rookie mistake and fixed.with the s sub why when differentiated sin is negative cos
It's ok it's amazing you even were able to get to that point. I saw another one but I think I may be wrong because you and vern got to the same point but also the first sub why is the differential of tan -sec squaredPretend you didnt see that . Also yes rookie mistake and fixed.
Yeah honestly don't know what I was thinking, ironically the final answer is correct since the two negatives (which were both mistakes) cancel out.It's ok it's amazing you even were able to get to that point. I saw another one but I think I may be wrong because you and vern got to the same point but also the first sub why is the differential of tan -sec squared
Dw you fixed it
Yeah everything is good till the last step when you have to convert the u to a w so you will get a square root again.Something's very wrong, I can feel it.
You're invincible at maths. Even when you make mistakes it's not really a mistake and works out in your favor.Yeah honestly don't know what I was thinking, ironically the final answer is correct since the two negatives (which were both mistakes) cancel out.
i just gave up at the end cuz i knew it was gonna look uglyYeah everything is good till the last step when you have to convert the u to a w so you will get a square root again.
Yep and you would have got what Vern and I got. The sub does your two subs in one.i just gave up at the end cuz i knew it was gonna look ugly
actually i couldve subbed in w = tanv or something