Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #76 20110722 07:13:26
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #78 20110722 07:23:54
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionHi; Now what you do is form a 6 x 6 set of simultaneous linear equations. This is done by substituting x = 3,2,1,0,1,2 in the above. That wipes out the x and you are left with: Which is exactly what we expected. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #79 20110722 07:35:29
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionOooh thanks bobbym that's perfect, my only question would be where we've accounted for the fact that the product of our denominators is four times the original denominator. I also wonder if it would be possible to tell that our numerators would be quadratics if we hadn't had the answer to begin with  more out of curiosity than anything else. #80 20110722 07:38:50
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionHi;
One way is to say the numerator is an 8th degree poly, a quadratic times by a six degree In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #82 20110722 08:00:25
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionI think that is just some factor that Mathematica pulled out, for what reason... I do not know. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #83 20110722 08:20:03
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionHmmm, yes I see, but ought we not account for it. I tried taking the four outside, although perhaps that was not correct. What I am interested in, though, is why we don't have to worry about it when computing a,b,c,d,e and f #84 20110722 08:23:11
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #85 20110722 14:00:39
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionHi, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #86 20110722 14:25:52
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionHi gAr; That is why I went right to 2 quadratics in the numerators. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #87 20110722 14:36:05
Re: Tricky integral of a rational functionHi bobbym, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." 