Monday, 3 March 2014

real analysis - Unsure of my work evaluating intfracdxsqrtx+sqrtx+sqrtx+cdots



This Question is an Extension of this Previously Asked Question: Nested root integral 10dxx+x+x



I was looking into answering the question of whether it was possible to integrate the fully nested root integral of the variety described in the previous problem:
dxx+x+x+


So I started by defining the nested root in another way

u=x+uu2u=x(2u1)du=dx

Using the results of the substitution I have set up
dxx+x+x+=2u1udu=(21u)du=2uln(u)



I am unsure of my work, as I have never attempted to integrate any infinitely nested functions. Therefore I have no idea whether my method for u-substitution is valid. Am I just living under a rock or have other people seen this method used previously? For such a seemingly intimidating problem it was surely quite easy.



I had difficulty checking my work using wolfram alpha, but I managed to confirm that this works for the definite integral limits from x=1 to x=2 and from x=1 to x=3. Maybe I am just flat out wrong and got lucky on these two calculations?


Answer



Short Answer:




Your work is perfectly fine if your lower and upper integral limits satisfy 0<ab. In that case your answer 2uln(u) even has a nice closed form purely in terms of x:




badxx+x+x+=[(1+4x+1)ln(12(1+4x+1))]ba




This formula also continues to work for a lower limit of a=0 if you interpret either the integral and/or the nested radical x+x+x+ in the denominator properly enough.




Long Answer (Analysis):



Since you used u-substitution, your method should work as long as the conditions for an integration by substitution are met. Say you are integrating over some interval [a,b]. You have to verify:




  • Does the function u(x)=x+u(x) that you defined implicitly actually make sense over [a,b]? In other words, is there really a function u:[a,b]R that satisfies that recursion?


  • Is the function u(x) actually differentiable over [a,b]?




There is some good news for these questions:_




As long as x>0, there is a well-defined expression for u in terms of x when u=x+u. To realize this, we need translate the intuitive expression x+x+x+ into the precise language of calculus. Only then can we bring the full power of calculus to bear on this problem. So formally what is going on with a nested radical like x+x+x+ is this:




Let ux,1=x and define recursively the sequence ux,n+1=x+ux,n (nZ+). If ux=limnux,n

exists, then we may define our sought-after function u at x to be u(x)=ux. In essence, the limit limnux,n is mathematically what we define the expression x+x+x+ to be. And we can easily check that ux=x+ux by taking the limit as n at both sides of the equation ux,n+1=x+ux,n.




Now the good news is that, as long as x>0, you can show that the sequence ux,n is bounded and monotonically increasing so that it does converge to a definite limit, namely



ux=12(1+4x+1)




Hence, our function u(x)=ux is well-defined for x>0. Also, note that the formula above should not surprise you. You can easily see where it originated:



Informally, if you take your substitution equation u2u=x and wrote it as a quadratic equation u2ux=0, you can solve it by thinking of x as a constant. And indeed, one of the solutions that pops out is precisely u+=12(1+4x+1). You can eliminate the other solution u=12(14x+1) since it is negative if x>0 and by convention square roots are positive.




So as long as x>0, you can safely take u(x)=12(1+4x+1)

as the u-substitution function which satisfies u=x+u. In fact, as is apparent from the formula, u(x) is even differentiable in this case.




But there are caveats:_




1. Note that for x<0, the limit does not make sense: as the very first sequence element ux,1=x is not real. So, from this very analysis, you can immediately conclude that you should not be integrating over negative values in your integral.



2. Next, at x=0, things almost work out but break down anyway: Note, we only managed to eliminate 12(14x+1) as a candidate for the limit above because it was negative if x>0. Well, if x=0, then u=12(14x+1)=0 and you can no longer eliminate it that easily. So, we must go back to our definition of x+x+x+ in terms of sequences to arbitrate between u+ and u. Applying that definition when x=0, we see that u=0 is the candidate that is chosen this time not u+=1. This is because in this case, all the sequence elements ux,n are zero: ux=0,1=x=0=0,ux=0,2=x+ux=0,1=0+0=0, etc



Hence, limnux=0,n=0 and u(0)=0. However, approaching 0 from the right, we see that
limx0+u(x)=12(1+40+1)=1

And therefore even though u(x) is defined at x=0, it is sadly not continuous there, let alone differentiable. So the u-substitution Theorem no longer applies.



In any case, there is an even worse problem when x=0. Note that the function you are trying to integrate f(x)=x+x+x+ is undefined at x=0 because as we saw, our definition of x+x+x+ in terms of sequences gives you a 0 when x=0. So there would be a 0 in your denominator for f(x) if that was allowed.




Okay, so we have concluded so far that:_



As long as your integration interval [a,b] satisfies 0<ab, your work should go through and you can use u(x)=12(1+4x+1) as the explicit formula for u to express your final integral answer:




badxx+x+x+=[(1+4x+1)ln(12(1+4x+1))]ba





Fixing the breakdown at x=0:_



If you really want x=0 as one of the limits e.g.
b0dxx+x+x+

for b>0, you can do so in two ways, both of which lead to the same result:




  • You can modify the definition of x+x+x+ thus: it defaults to the usual definition via sequences if x>0 and to 12(1+40+1)=1 if x=0. Then you can safely use u(x)=12(1+4x+1) for all x0. And the answer you will get for your integral is exactly what you would expect by plugging in a=0 in the closed form I gave above:
    (1+4b+1)ln(12(1+4b+1))2


  • On the other hand, you can instead take a limiting integral in the same spirit that we define b01x2dx to get around the singularity of 1x2 at 0. That is, you can define:
    b0dxx+x+x+:=lima0+badxx+x+x+=lima0+[2u(x)ln(u(x))]ba

    This leads to the same answer because ultimately lima0+u(x)=1.



No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find limh0sin(ha)h without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...