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.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • 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















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.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • 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













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.










share|cite|improve this question













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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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


















  • 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










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 $n - 1$.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 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











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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

























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 $n - 1$.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 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















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 $n - 1$.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 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













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 $n - 1$.






share|cite|improve this answer














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 $n - 1$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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














  • 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


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater