MHB Solve Integral w/ Change of Variable Technique

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stumped1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Change Variable
AI Thread Summary
To solve the integral $$\int x\frac{2x}{1000^2}e^{-(x/1000)^2}dx$$ using the change of variable technique, the substitution $$u=(x/1000)^2$$ is appropriate, leading to $$du=2x/1000^2 dx$$. This substitution simplifies the integral, but the extra $$x$$ needs to be expressed in terms of $$u$$. By solving for $$x$$ from the substitution, you can rewrite the integral entirely in terms of $$u$$. This approach allows for a straightforward evaluation of the integral without the extra variable.
Stumped1
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
How would I apply the change of variable technique to solve the integral
$$\int x\frac{2x}{1000^2}e^{-(x/1000)^2}dx$$

w/ out the $$x$$ I used
$$u=(x/1000)^2$$ , and $$du=2x/1000^2$$

Now, I am calculating $$E(x)$$, and now sure how to deal w/ the extra $$x$$.

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Stumped said:
How would I apply the change of variable technique to solve the integral
$$\int x\frac{2x}{1000^2}e^{-(x/1000)^2}dx$$

w/ out the $$x$$ I used
$$u=(x/1000)^2$$ , and $$du=2x/1000^2$$

Now, I am calculating $$E(x)$$, and now sure how to deal w/ the extra $$x$$.

Thanks for any help!

The key is that substitution works both ways.

First, you let $u = \left(\frac{x}{1000}\right)^2$. So, what does that make $x$ equal to?
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top