Reduction formula for $intfrac{dx}{(ax^2+b)^n}$
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I recently stumbled upon the following reduction formula on the internet which I am so far unable to prove.
$$I_n=intfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(ax^2+b)^n}\I_n=frac{x}{2b(n-1)(ax^2+b)^{n-1}}+frac{2n-3}{2b(n-1)}I_{n-1}$$
I tried the substitution $x=sqrt{frac ba}t$, and it gave me
$$I_n=frac{b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}intfrac{mathrm{d}t}{(t^2+1)^n}$$
To which I applied $t=tan u$:
$$I_n=frac{b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}intcot^{n-1}u mathrm{d}u$$
I then used the $cot^nu$ reduction formula to find
$$I_n=frac{-b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}bigg(frac{cot^{n-2}u}{n-2}+intcot^{n-3}u mathrm{d}ubigg)$$
$$I_n=frac{-b^{1/2-n}cot^{n-2}u}{a^{1/2}(n-2)}-b^2I_{n-2}$$
Which is a reduction formula, but not the reduction formula.
Could someone provide a derivation of the reduction formula? Thanks.
calculus integration proof-explanation indefinite-integrals reduction-formula
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I recently stumbled upon the following reduction formula on the internet which I am so far unable to prove.
$$I_n=intfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(ax^2+b)^n}\I_n=frac{x}{2b(n-1)(ax^2+b)^{n-1}}+frac{2n-3}{2b(n-1)}I_{n-1}$$
I tried the substitution $x=sqrt{frac ba}t$, and it gave me
$$I_n=frac{b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}intfrac{mathrm{d}t}{(t^2+1)^n}$$
To which I applied $t=tan u$:
$$I_n=frac{b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}intcot^{n-1}u mathrm{d}u$$
I then used the $cot^nu$ reduction formula to find
$$I_n=frac{-b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}bigg(frac{cot^{n-2}u}{n-2}+intcot^{n-3}u mathrm{d}ubigg)$$
$$I_n=frac{-b^{1/2-n}cot^{n-2}u}{a^{1/2}(n-2)}-b^2I_{n-2}$$
Which is a reduction formula, but not the reduction formula.
Could someone provide a derivation of the reduction formula? Thanks.
calculus integration proof-explanation indefinite-integrals reduction-formula
I think you've found the reduction formula depends on $b$.
– Nosrati
Nov 15 at 4:48
@Nosrati how so?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 4:49
Note that this method only works (at least without introducing complex numbers, which requires some care to resolve) if $a > 0, b geq 0$.
– Travis
Nov 15 at 20:03
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I recently stumbled upon the following reduction formula on the internet which I am so far unable to prove.
$$I_n=intfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(ax^2+b)^n}\I_n=frac{x}{2b(n-1)(ax^2+b)^{n-1}}+frac{2n-3}{2b(n-1)}I_{n-1}$$
I tried the substitution $x=sqrt{frac ba}t$, and it gave me
$$I_n=frac{b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}intfrac{mathrm{d}t}{(t^2+1)^n}$$
To which I applied $t=tan u$:
$$I_n=frac{b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}intcot^{n-1}u mathrm{d}u$$
I then used the $cot^nu$ reduction formula to find
$$I_n=frac{-b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}bigg(frac{cot^{n-2}u}{n-2}+intcot^{n-3}u mathrm{d}ubigg)$$
$$I_n=frac{-b^{1/2-n}cot^{n-2}u}{a^{1/2}(n-2)}-b^2I_{n-2}$$
Which is a reduction formula, but not the reduction formula.
Could someone provide a derivation of the reduction formula? Thanks.
calculus integration proof-explanation indefinite-integrals reduction-formula
I recently stumbled upon the following reduction formula on the internet which I am so far unable to prove.
$$I_n=intfrac{mathrm{d}x}{(ax^2+b)^n}\I_n=frac{x}{2b(n-1)(ax^2+b)^{n-1}}+frac{2n-3}{2b(n-1)}I_{n-1}$$
I tried the substitution $x=sqrt{frac ba}t$, and it gave me
$$I_n=frac{b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}intfrac{mathrm{d}t}{(t^2+1)^n}$$
To which I applied $t=tan u$:
$$I_n=frac{b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}intcot^{n-1}u mathrm{d}u$$
I then used the $cot^nu$ reduction formula to find
$$I_n=frac{-b^{1/2-n}}{a^{1/2}}bigg(frac{cot^{n-2}u}{n-2}+intcot^{n-3}u mathrm{d}ubigg)$$
$$I_n=frac{-b^{1/2-n}cot^{n-2}u}{a^{1/2}(n-2)}-b^2I_{n-2}$$
Which is a reduction formula, but not the reduction formula.
Could someone provide a derivation of the reduction formula? Thanks.
calculus integration proof-explanation indefinite-integrals reduction-formula
calculus integration proof-explanation indefinite-integrals reduction-formula
asked Nov 15 at 4:41
clathratus
1,714219
1,714219
I think you've found the reduction formula depends on $b$.
– Nosrati
Nov 15 at 4:48
@Nosrati how so?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 4:49
Note that this method only works (at least without introducing complex numbers, which requires some care to resolve) if $a > 0, b geq 0$.
– Travis
Nov 15 at 20:03
add a comment |
I think you've found the reduction formula depends on $b$.
– Nosrati
Nov 15 at 4:48
@Nosrati how so?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 4:49
Note that this method only works (at least without introducing complex numbers, which requires some care to resolve) if $a > 0, b geq 0$.
– Travis
Nov 15 at 20:03
I think you've found the reduction formula depends on $b$.
– Nosrati
Nov 15 at 4:48
I think you've found the reduction formula depends on $b$.
– Nosrati
Nov 15 at 4:48
@Nosrati how so?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 4:49
@Nosrati how so?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 4:49
Note that this method only works (at least without introducing complex numbers, which requires some care to resolve) if $a > 0, b geq 0$.
– Travis
Nov 15 at 20:03
Note that this method only works (at least without introducing complex numbers, which requires some care to resolve) if $a > 0, b geq 0$.
– Travis
Nov 15 at 20:03
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Hint The appearance of the term in $frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^{n - 1}}$ suggests applying integration by parts with $dv = dx$ and thus $u = (a x^2 + b)^{-n}$. Renaming $n$ to $m$ we get
$$I_m = u v - int v ,du = frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^m} + 2 m int frac{a x^2 ,dx}{(a x^2 + b)^{m + 1}} .$$
Now, the integral on the right can be rewritten as a linear combination $p I_{m + 1} + qI_m$, so we can solve for $I_{m + 1}$ in terms of $I_m$ and replace $m$ with $n - 1$.
1
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks (+1)
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 5:01
I'm glad you found it useful, cheers!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 5:05
Based on what you said I was able to prove it last night. That's when I learned just how damn elegant it was! I would upvote this answer twice if I could. Where did you learn such a simple trick?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 18:52
I don't think I learned it anywhere in particular---really, the only trick here is reindexing from $n$ to $m = n - 1$. At any rate, I'm happy you found the method illuminating!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 19:40
Yeah it was just so simple yet so unexpected. I'm always used to proving reduction formulas without having to use that trick.
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 19:41
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Hint The appearance of the term in $frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^{n - 1}}$ suggests applying integration by parts with $dv = dx$ and thus $u = (a x^2 + b)^{-n}$. Renaming $n$ to $m$ we get
$$I_m = u v - int v ,du = frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^m} + 2 m int frac{a x^2 ,dx}{(a x^2 + b)^{m + 1}} .$$
Now, the integral on the right can be rewritten as a linear combination $p I_{m + 1} + qI_m$, so we can solve for $I_{m + 1}$ in terms of $I_m$ and replace $m$ with $n - 1$.
1
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks (+1)
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 5:01
I'm glad you found it useful, cheers!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 5:05
Based on what you said I was able to prove it last night. That's when I learned just how damn elegant it was! I would upvote this answer twice if I could. Where did you learn such a simple trick?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 18:52
I don't think I learned it anywhere in particular---really, the only trick here is reindexing from $n$ to $m = n - 1$. At any rate, I'm happy you found the method illuminating!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 19:40
Yeah it was just so simple yet so unexpected. I'm always used to proving reduction formulas without having to use that trick.
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 19:41
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Hint The appearance of the term in $frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^{n - 1}}$ suggests applying integration by parts with $dv = dx$ and thus $u = (a x^2 + b)^{-n}$. Renaming $n$ to $m$ we get
$$I_m = u v - int v ,du = frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^m} + 2 m int frac{a x^2 ,dx}{(a x^2 + b)^{m + 1}} .$$
Now, the integral on the right can be rewritten as a linear combination $p I_{m + 1} + qI_m$, so we can solve for $I_{m + 1}$ in terms of $I_m$ and replace $m$ with $n - 1$.
1
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks (+1)
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 5:01
I'm glad you found it useful, cheers!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 5:05
Based on what you said I was able to prove it last night. That's when I learned just how damn elegant it was! I would upvote this answer twice if I could. Where did you learn such a simple trick?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 18:52
I don't think I learned it anywhere in particular---really, the only trick here is reindexing from $n$ to $m = n - 1$. At any rate, I'm happy you found the method illuminating!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 19:40
Yeah it was just so simple yet so unexpected. I'm always used to proving reduction formulas without having to use that trick.
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 19:41
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Hint The appearance of the term in $frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^{n - 1}}$ suggests applying integration by parts with $dv = dx$ and thus $u = (a x^2 + b)^{-n}$. Renaming $n$ to $m$ we get
$$I_m = u v - int v ,du = frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^m} + 2 m int frac{a x^2 ,dx}{(a x^2 + b)^{m + 1}} .$$
Now, the integral on the right can be rewritten as a linear combination $p I_{m + 1} + qI_m$, so we can solve for $I_{m + 1}$ in terms of $I_m$ and replace $m$ with $n - 1$.
Hint The appearance of the term in $frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^{n - 1}}$ suggests applying integration by parts with $dv = dx$ and thus $u = (a x^2 + b)^{-n}$. Renaming $n$ to $m$ we get
$$I_m = u v - int v ,du = frac{x}{(a x^2 + b)^m} + 2 m int frac{a x^2 ,dx}{(a x^2 + b)^{m + 1}} .$$
Now, the integral on the right can be rewritten as a linear combination $p I_{m + 1} + qI_m$, so we can solve for $I_{m + 1}$ in terms of $I_m$ and replace $m$ with $n - 1$.
edited Nov 15 at 18:59
answered Nov 15 at 5:00
Travis
58.5k765142
58.5k765142
1
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks (+1)
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 5:01
I'm glad you found it useful, cheers!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 5:05
Based on what you said I was able to prove it last night. That's when I learned just how damn elegant it was! I would upvote this answer twice if I could. Where did you learn such a simple trick?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 18:52
I don't think I learned it anywhere in particular---really, the only trick here is reindexing from $n$ to $m = n - 1$. At any rate, I'm happy you found the method illuminating!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 19:40
Yeah it was just so simple yet so unexpected. I'm always used to proving reduction formulas without having to use that trick.
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 19:41
add a comment |
1
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks (+1)
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 5:01
I'm glad you found it useful, cheers!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 5:05
Based on what you said I was able to prove it last night. That's when I learned just how damn elegant it was! I would upvote this answer twice if I could. Where did you learn such a simple trick?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 18:52
I don't think I learned it anywhere in particular---really, the only trick here is reindexing from $n$ to $m = n - 1$. At any rate, I'm happy you found the method illuminating!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 19:40
Yeah it was just so simple yet so unexpected. I'm always used to proving reduction formulas without having to use that trick.
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 19:41
1
1
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks (+1)
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 5:01
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks (+1)
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 5:01
I'm glad you found it useful, cheers!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 5:05
I'm glad you found it useful, cheers!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 5:05
Based on what you said I was able to prove it last night. That's when I learned just how damn elegant it was! I would upvote this answer twice if I could. Where did you learn such a simple trick?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 18:52
Based on what you said I was able to prove it last night. That's when I learned just how damn elegant it was! I would upvote this answer twice if I could. Where did you learn such a simple trick?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 18:52
I don't think I learned it anywhere in particular---really, the only trick here is reindexing from $n$ to $m = n - 1$. At any rate, I'm happy you found the method illuminating!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 19:40
I don't think I learned it anywhere in particular---really, the only trick here is reindexing from $n$ to $m = n - 1$. At any rate, I'm happy you found the method illuminating!
– Travis
Nov 15 at 19:40
Yeah it was just so simple yet so unexpected. I'm always used to proving reduction formulas without having to use that trick.
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 19:41
Yeah it was just so simple yet so unexpected. I'm always used to proving reduction formulas without having to use that trick.
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 19:41
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2999219%2freduction-formula-for-int-fracdxax2bn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I think you've found the reduction formula depends on $b$.
– Nosrati
Nov 15 at 4:48
@Nosrati how so?
– clathratus
Nov 15 at 4:49
Note that this method only works (at least without introducing complex numbers, which requires some care to resolve) if $a > 0, b geq 0$.
– Travis
Nov 15 at 20:03