For 4, I think people should still attempt it / try other methods, as it is much less clear why "letting a=-i" should be valid. Letting a=-1 would give us something nonsensical for example. Definitely need to say something more to justify the formula being the same as that of the Gaussian integral (and why that particular choice of square root and not the other).
Here's a very deceptive integral which appears simple.
Nice , it's a bit lengthier than you can do it using complex analysis but I like the fact that a high school student could understand it.
The good old tedious integral of 1/(1+t^4) haha.
Ah right, I was thinking of the one with a t2 on the numerator too (the one that comes about when doing integral of √(tan x) ). That one was more tedious iirc. (Split into partial fractions etc.)
No, that one is amenable to double symmetric substitution as well.Ah right, I was thinking of the one with a t2 on the numerator too (the one that comes about when doing integral of √(tan x) ). That one was more tedious iirc. (Split into partial fractions etc.)
Let for
I've seen the solution to that integral before, good luck everyone.
Is that the most straightforward way to do it?I've seen the solution to that integral before, good luck everyone.
It's the way I've seen it done, there could be a simpler wayIs that the most straightforward way to do it?
Surely there must be more straightforward ways.
Here's a very deceptive integral which appears simple.
Here's a very deceptive integral which appears simple.
Excellent solution to the integral .
Yes, I know, but I was trying to keep the problem "purely real" for the benefit of any MX2 students who may care to read this thread (though those who are reading this thread probably already know or could follow the complex way anyway).Excellent solution to the integral .
One minor remark is that another way of proving the summation result used is taking the real part of the geometric series summation (common ratio z=a*cis(x)).
I.e. find the real part of 1/(1-a*cis(x)), which is quite quick.
Don't bother, anyone who can follow this thread on the real analysis side probably has what it takes to follow the complex analysis side.Yes, I know, but I was trying to keep the problem "purely real" for the benefit of any MX2 students who may care to read this thread (though those who are reading this thread probably already know or could follow the complex way anyway).