Topic: Maths problem....

[TRC]

Right doing intergration by substitution, and there is nout in this big f*** off textbook that I "had" to buy which hasn't even eben used yet, about it.

so could anyone tell me how the f*** you intergrate this:

dx/(x^0.5 + 1)^0.5  when u = x^0.5+1

solid...

[Invicta_Toon]

no 

[smoggeordie]

Differentiate the u=x^0.5+1 bit to get du/dx then rearrange that bit in terms of dx so you can substitute on the top so you will have

I'm not telling you/u^0.5

Then work out as normal.

Don't forget to change your integration limits.

(I think, aint done substitution in donkeys )

[Magnetic North]

“so could anyone tell me how the **** you intergrate this:
dx/(x^0.5 + 1)^0.5  when u = x^0.5+1”

No problem at all Andy,  if you can tell me about Jacobean vernacular mannerist architecture. You've 10 seconds.
Shoot.

[Syrette]

OK then.

[Invicta_Toon]

tell you what, lets swap

If you can tell me how to do principle component analysis using a Guassian normalised distribution, we might be able to trade...

[Cajun]

Its 74.

[Syrette]

3292932392332.992929292222222222223931r93/12 tbh

[Invicta_Toon]

Its 74.

it's a good job you're pretty 

[Cajun]

Its 74.

it's a good job you're pretty 

pretty good at maths?

[Invicta_Toon]

Its 74.

it's a good job you're pretty 

pretty good at maths?

aw bless

 bluebiggrin.gif

[TRC]

I'm not telling you/u^0.5

??

Well I just gave up ened up with 2u/u^0.5 then didnt know how to intergrate it so just gave up.

[Geordie Boot Boy]

(4/3)(x^0.5 + 1)^1.5 - 4(x^0.5 + 1)^0.5 + integrating constant

Not meaning to be condascending but I don't see what your problem is.  Where are you having the difficulty?  Get everything within the integral in terms of u and integrate. 

[TRC]

(4/3)(x^0.5 + 1)^1.5 - 4(x^0.5 + 1)^0.5 + integrating constant

Not meaning to be condascending but I don't see what your problem is.  Where are you having the difficulty?  Get everything within the integral in terms of u and integrate. 

Me either. Just something about Intergration by substitution I just can't do, just dont think I was ever taught it properly. I'm going to have a go at it, and I'll see what happens.

[Tom_NUFC]

Maths!  blueupset.gif bluesigh.gif
Does my head in.

[Howaythelads]

I'd start with a dictionary, like.

[Ally]

What the f***?

[Elephant]

I have to say that I don't understand anything in this topic.

[Magnetic North]

What I've personally taken from this thread is a reminder that maths/science types struggle with grammar  :winking:

[TRC]

I'm pretty s*** at all that writing malarky like.

[Cajun]

I have to say that I don't understand anything in this topic.

The only thing I have worked out is Invicta thinks im pretty snoopy.gif 

[NE5]

Right doing intergration by substitution, and there is nout in this big f*** off textbook that I "had" to buy which hasn't even eben used yet, about it.

so could anyone tell me how the f*** you intergrate this:

dx/(x^0.5 + 1)^0.5  when u = x^0.5+1

solid...

could have done it years ago, but forgot now. Sorry mate.

[TRC]

I got it all sorted now like. Stuck on something else, but its just the wording of the question.

M = 4  3
       2  3

find  a,b such that M^2+aM+bM=0

I've done that bit which seemed pretty straight forward. The next part is

Premultiply this equation,with your values of a and b, sympolically by M^-1, assuming it exists, and hence find M^-1 in terms of M and I.

What the f*** is that?

[Geordie Boot Boy]

I got it all sorted now like. Stuck on something else, but its just the wording of the question.

M = 4  3
       2  3

find  a,b such that M^2+aM+bM=0

I've done that bit which seemed pretty straight forward. The next part is

Premultiply this equation,with your values of a and b, sympolically by M^-1, assuming it exists, and hence find M^-1 in terms of M and I.

What the **** is that?

You're going to have to be a bit clearer here.  Are you sure that

M^2+aM+bM=0

isn't supposed to be

M^2+aM+b=0?

That would make a lot more sense to me.  Assuming this is the case,

M^-1=(1/6)(7I - M).

[TRC]

Sorry its bI not bM

I being the identity.