Thursday, 17 January 2019

integration - Integral int10fracdxsqrt[3]x(1x)(1x(1x))




Prove, using elementary methods, that
10dx3x(1x)(1x(1x))=4π33





I have seen this integral in the following post, however all answers presented exploits complex analysis or heavy series.



But according to mickep's answer even the indefinite integral possess a primitive in terms of elementary functions. I'm not that insane to try and find that by hand, however it gives me great hope that we can find an elementary approach for the definite integral.



Although I kept coming back to it for the past months, I still got no success, or relevant progress and I would appreciate some help.


Answer



Given the function f:(0,1)R
f(x):=13x(1x)(1x(1x)),


we are interested in the calculation of
I:=10f(x)dx.

First of all it is good to observe that:
f(1x)=f(x),x(0,1)

then:

I=2120f(x)dx.

At this point, since:
f(14t3+12)=1t(t3+1),ddt(14t3+12)=3t24t3+1

it follows that:
I=60134tt3+1dt4t3+1.

Now we can take advantage of the power of Rubi in Wolfram Mathematica:



PacletInstall["https://github.com/RuleBasedIntegration/Rubi/
releases/download/4.16.1.0/Rubi-4.16.1.0.paclet"];
<< Rubi`
Steps@Int[t/((t^3 + 1) Sqrt[4 t^3 + 1]), t]


enter image description here




enter image description here



from which:
I=60134[2t16(t+1)4t3+1+t22(t3+1)4t3+12t33t216t(t2t+1)4t3+116t4t3+1]dt.


Hence a primitive in terms of elementary functions is:
I=6[arctan(3(1+2t)4t3+1)33+arctan(4t3+13)3313arctanh(12t4t3+1)+19arctanh(4t3+1)]t=0t=134

and therefore as desired:
I=4π33.







Like any other CAS system, also Rubi follows the rules written by the programmers, so it's always possible to proof by hand how much is executed. Specifically, the theory on which the above rule introduced by Martin Welz is based can be studied in E. GOURSAT Note sur quelques intégrales pseudo-elliptiques (1887). Therefore, based on what is written on page 114, the resolving technique of the integral under consideration can be studied in S. GÜNTHER Sur l’évaluation de certaines intégrales pseudo-elliptiques (1882).



In this case:
Stt3+1dt4t3+1


then imposing:
tt3+1=αt2t3+1+α1t2+β1t+γ1t+1+α2t2+β2t+γ2t2t+1

the identification gives the values:
α=12,α1=0,β1=13,γ1=16,α2=13,β2=13,γ2=16

ie:
tt3+1=t22(t3+1)+2t16(t+1)2t22t16(t2t+1)

from which:
S=t22(t3+1)dt4t3+1+2t16(t+1)dt4t3+1+2t22t16(t2t+1)dt4t3+1.

Now, for the first integral:
S1t22(t3+1)dt4t3+1

according to the method described in the paper:
u=αt3+βt2+γt+δ4t3+1

then imposing:
dumu2+n=t22(t3+1)dt4t3+1


ie:
dudt2(t+1/t2)4t3+1mu2+n=1

the identification gives the values:
α=0,β=0,γ=0,δ=13,m=27,n=1

ie:
S1=du27u2+1=arctan(33u)33+c1=arctan(34t3+1)33+c1.


Similarly, for the second integral:
S22t16(t+1)dt4t3+1

putting:
u=αt2+βt+γ4t3+1

then imposing:
dumu2+n=2t16(t+1)dt4t3+1

ie:
dudt6(t+1)2t14t3+1mu2+n=1

the identification gives the values:
α=0,β=23,γ=13,m=27,n=1

ie:
S2=du27u2+1=arctan(33u)33+c2=arctan(3(2t+1)4t3+1)33+c2.

For the third integral
S32t22t16(t2t+1)dt4t3+1

this transformation fails and therefore the only hope that remains about the pseudo-ellipticity of the integral consists in further decomposing the rational fraction; in particular, imposing:
2t22t16(t2t+1)=α6t+α1t3+β1t2+γ1t+δ16t(t2t+1)


the identification gives the values:
α=1,α1=2,β1=3,γ1=0,δ1=1

ie:
2t22t16(t2t+1)=16t+2t33t216t(t2t+1)

from which:
S3=16tdt4t3+1+2t33t216t(t2t+1)dt4t3+1.

Now, again, for the first integral:

S3,116tdt4t3+1

putting:
u=αt3+βt2+γt+δ4t3+1

then imposing:
dumu2+n=16tdt4t3+1

ie:
dudt6t4t3+1mu2+n=1

the identification gives the values:
α=0,β=0,γ=0,δ=19,m=81,n=1

ie:
S3,1=du81u2+1=19arctanh(9u)+c3,1=19arctanh(14t3+1)+c3,1.

Finally, for the second integral
S3,22t33t216t(t2t+1)dt4t3+1

putting:
u=αt2+βt+γ4t3+1

then imposing:

dumu2+n=2t33t216t(t2t+1)dt4t3+1

ie:
dudt6t(t2t+1)2t33t214t3+1mu2+n=1

the identification gives the values:
α=0,β=23,γ=13,m=9,n=1

ie:
S3,2=du9u2+1=13arctanh(3u)+c3,2=13arctanh(2t14t3+1)+c3,2.

In conclusion, the searched primitive family is
S=S1+S2+S3,1+S3,2,

which is completely equivalent to that returned by Rubi and therefore evaluating it at the extremes returns what we wanted to prove.



An elementary alternative to avoid the determination of the primitive consists in the parametric method of derivation and integration under the sign of integral (also known as Richard Feynman's trick), but if it isn't possible to identify a winning strategy it's impractical, similar to the method here exposed.


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}...