can you solve this without a computer/internet?
I came across it recently, and was thinking about revising my calculus knowledge just to solve this.
can you solve this without a computer/internet?
I came across it recently, and was thinking about revising my calculus knowledge just to solve this.
Solution
that’s not it. none of your variables are in the integral
The arccos stuff goes to the bottom since it's^-1
From there I'm guessing it's some trig sub then fucktons if u-subbing then some IBP.
I got lost and dropped calc ii when we got to trig sub so idk.
im saving it for after I re-learn calculus from 0 in 1 week next week
>log base e
>not ln
Did you even pass college algebra?
0, do your own homework
it’s not my image.
and yes.
any piggot could solve it
anyone who doesn't waste 90% of its time eating fucking oats, bran, oinking and shit like that could've easily accumulated enough mathematical knowledge to be able to solve that shit easily
(btw, for the ignorant pigs: piggot is the autistic fusion between a pig and a faggot)
all is see is just a lot of talk and not a single try at attempting to solve that or answer the OP’s question
did Veeky Forums really deteriorate that much
we are becoming putrid, we are rotting away, we have worms in our eyes and we are fucking decrepit ass niggas with 0 knowledge about math, we need someone to show us the light and repair our damaged brainlet pseudo-brains
...
You forgot an x
>thinking about revising my calculus knowledge just to solve this
kek
I might, but it would take a while. My first instinct would be integration by parts with the top being u and the bottom being dv
Probably because it looks tedious as fuck
ya looks easy, at least initially
u=1-x^2, du/dx=-2x
and some subs writes in terms of u
then, not sure
m8 the reason that IBP has worked so well for you is because in your calc 2 class they give you very specific problems where you can just blindly IBP and *poof* it's solved
given some random complicated integral you can't just do that and hope to help anything. i mean jesus christ, the resulting integral from attempting that would be even more horrendous - just think about it.
ya.... no
perpahs a double subsititution of somekind to get started
the obvious first substitution is x = cos(u)
then use double angle sine identity for the bottom part and work out from there
the outermost -1 in the numerator is supposed to mean function inverse, not reciprocal.
You get nowhere
you would if it wasn't for that's idiotic notation and convinces me that you pulled this integral out of your ass, write it properly
what in the fuck exactly tells you that?
Then I don't know. The 2x right next to the sqrt(1-x^2) looks tempting, as does the imbedded arccos(sqrt(1-x^2)). But this problem is probably meant to mess with people who try to solve it; why else would they use such stupid notation? Still, for all intents and purposes, a series expansion would be most helpful for definite integration.
>brainlets use log for base 10 and not for base e
>brainlets still use ln
Put x=sin(t)
And watch everything unfold into simple terms
Underrated
It takes a second to disconnect it from its context. If it wasn't written as the answer to a math form as the first reply to that math form, I'd wager a guess that more people would get the joke.
ebin
i dont get it
oh ya.. never mind
Jesus Christ OP what a clusterfuck, did you make this in paint?
revised
Integration by parts is the obvious first step, its the only way to integrate that arccos and log
This actually just looks like a complicated u sub. The derivative of arccos is present, and of (1-x^2)
>log base e
The solution is F(x), where F(x) is defined as the solution to that particular integral.
It's fucking /pol/, those faggots are bringing all sorts of cancer with them.
Just listen to this cunt over here.
It's so fucking easy just substitute that in place of x.
Because it's a stupid question. I am not a freshman, if I'm going to piss away my nights evaluating antiderivatives they should either be unusual or have some further meaning than just "here's the antiderivative".
This is neither, it's just an obfuscated mess made up by somebody who doesn't even know what ln is
No. And I see no reason why I would want to do so.