This Question is an Extension of this Previously Asked Question: Nested root integral ∫10dx√x+√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:
∫dx√x+√x+√x+…
So I started by defining the nested root in another way
u=√x+u∴u2−u=x(2u−1)du=dx
Using the results of the substitution I have set up
∫dx√x+√x+√x+…=∫2u−1udu=∫(2−1u)du=2u−ln(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<a≤b. In that case your answer 2u−ln(u) even has a nice closed form purely in terms of x:
∫badx√x+√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 (n∈Z+). If ux=limn→∞ux,n
exists, then we may define our sought-after function u at x to be u(x)=ux. In essence, the limit limn→∞ux,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 u2−u=x and wrote it as a quadratic equation u2−u−x=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(1−√4x+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(1−√4x+1) as a candidate for the limit above because it was negative if x>0. Well, if x=0, then u−=12(1−√4x+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, limn→∞ux=0,n=0 and u(0)=0. However, approaching 0 from the right, we see that
limx→0+u(x)=12(1+√4⋅0+1)=1
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<a≤b, 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:
∫badx√x+√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.
∫b0dx√x+√x+√x+…
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+√4⋅0+1)=1 if x=0. Then you can safely use u(x)=12(1+√4x+1) for all x≥0. 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))−2On 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:
∫b0dx√x+√x+√x+…:=lima→0+∫badx√x+√x+√x+…=lima→0+[2u(x)−ln(u(x))]baThis leads to the same answer because ultimately lima→0+u(x)=1.
No comments:
Post a Comment