Math debate

Skitarii

Hacker on Steroids
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Evaluate the line integral where C is the given curve. We're integrating over the curve C, y to the third ds, and C is the curve with parametric equations x = t cubed, y = t. We're going from t = 0 to t = 2. So we're going to integrate over that curve C of y to the third ds. We're going to convert everything into our parameter t in terms of our parameter t. So I'm going to be integrating from t = 0 to t = 2. Those will be my limits of integration. Now y is equal to t, so I'm going to replace y with what it's equal to in terms of t. So I'm going to be integrating the function t to the third. Now ds we're going to write as a square root of dx dt squared + dy dt squared, squared of all that as we said dt. So we're integrating now everything with respect to t. So this is going to be equal to the integral from 0 to 2 of t to the third times the square root of -- see the derivative of x with respect to t is 3 t squared. So we have 3 t squared squared + dy dt; well, that's just 1 squared dt. So we have the integral from 0 to 2 of t to the third times the square root of 9 t to the fourth + 1 dt. So this is a pretty straightforward integration here. We're going to let u be equal to 9 t to the fourth + 1 then du is equal to 36 t to the third dt and so that tells me I can replace a t to the third dt with a du over 36. And so we're going to have the integral then from -- well, new limits of integration. I'm just going to put some squiggly marks there to remind myself that we switched variables. So I'm not going from t = 0 to t = 2. I'm doing things in terms of you right now. But I have a 1 over 36. I'll put that out front, and we're going to have the square root of u. So u to the 1/2, t to the third dt was replaced by du over 36. We got the 36 out front. And so now this is a pretty easy antiderivative in terms of u. It's u to the 3/2 times 2/3. And again, different limits of integration. We could figure out what they are in terms of u, but I'm going to convert back into t. So we're going to have 1 over 36 times 2/3 times u to the 3/2. Now, u is 9 t to the fourth + 1, that to the 3/2 power. And now we can go ahead and go from original limits of integration 0 to 2. So let's see, when I put a 2 in here, we're going to have -- 1 over 36 times 2/3. That's going to be 1 over 54, isn't it? So we'll have 1 over 54 times -- putting a 2 in, we have 9 times 2 to the fourth. That's 9 times 16, which is 144 + 1, is 145. So we put the 2 in there, we get 145 to the 3/2 minus, putting the 0 in, we get 9 x 0 to the fourth. That's 0. 0 + 1 is 1. So we just get 1 to the 3/2 or 1. So let's see, what's the best way to write this. How about 1 over 54 -- I guess we could leave it like that. We could also write 145 to the 3/2 as 145 times the square root of 145 and then minus 1. And that is that line integral of y to the third ds over the given curve C.
 
To be honest, I realized I had forgotten parametrics right when I started reading this. Isn't the second parametric derivative (dy/dt*dx/dt)/((d^2)x/dt^2), (dy/dt*dx/dt)/((d^2)y/dt^2)?
 
tldr, we can make this a mass dilate thread tho
I thought it was a debate on whether or not 2 + 2 = 5.
If you can't be bothered to format your equations with Mathematica, then I can't be bothered to look at your homework.
To be honest, I realized I had forgotten parametrics right when I started reading this. Isn't the second parametric derivative (dy/dt*dx/dt)/((d^2)x/dt^2), (dy/dt*dx/dt)/((d^2)y/dt^2)?
NOOO YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DEBATE MATHS IN THIS THREAD!!!
 
All right so, um... OK, all right. Books out, everyone turn to page three- three hundred twenty-five. We're doing the even numbered problems today and the odd numbered ones as homework. Problem 2... yes? If you don't have a book just look at your neighbor's-- I said just LOOK at it, stop grabbing. Stop grabbing! Settle down. All right, problem 2, Mikayla has 405 bananas and Jamarcus has 126 bananas, together how many bananas do they have? So we write 4... oh... 5, plus, 1... 2... 6. There we go. Who can tell me what that comes out to? Damon? ... No, it's not "a shitload", and stop using that sort of language in class. And take off that ball cap. ... That's not bad language, I said "ball cap". Your baseball cap. Take it off. ... Look, we add from right to left so we start with 5 plus 6. Who can tell me what 5 plus 6 is? Anyone? Come on, I saw some of you playing "Number Munchers", this must have come up on there. Anyone? ... Yeah, "Number Munchers", the game with the green -- NO, not "that green nig-" You know what, forget it. Forget it. Study hall for the rest of the period. I'm out.
 
NOOO YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DEBATE MATHS IN THIS THREAD!!!
Ok then. Why is it that when you exponent 2 by 0 it becomes 1 but if you multiply 2 by 0 it's 0?

I always found math interesting to play around with...one time I was screwing around with factorials and independently discovered the summation of 1/n! equals e. Kind of neat even if I think Euler proved it a couple hundred years ago.
I have a lot of fun playing with functions and see where all this goes.
 
Can OP write the problem in standard notation, take a picture, and update OP? I'm not reading that shit.
 
this is just the transcript of a khan academy vid and im pretty sure you left out what function we are integrating over
 
Back