Integral of $sec(x)$ using $u$ sub












2












$begingroup$


I've just begun learning how to integrate and I wanted to see if I could integrate $sec(x)$ by $u$-substitution. After getting my answer, I was told it couldn't be in complex form, but why, and if so, where did I go wrong? Here is how I did it:
$$int sec(x) dx$$
$$int frac{1}{cos(x)} dx$$
$$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx$$
$$int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
$u=2ix,du=2idx$
$$int frac{1}{e^u+1}du$$
$$int frac{e^u}{e^u(e^u+1)}du$$
$v=e^u,dv=e^udu$
$$int frac{1}{v^2+1}dv$$
$[arctan(v)]$



$[arctan(e^u)]$



$arctan(e^{2ix}) + C$






integration indefinite-integrals trigonometric-integrals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is this right? I was told I couldn't leave my answer in complex form. If so, is that the only answer, or are there other answers?
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 2:51






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    $$intfrac{1}{cos(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{cos^2(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{1-sin^2(x)}dx$$... and we are done.
    $endgroup$
    – Ixion
    Jan 4 at 2:53








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Your solution is incorrect: the error is in going from $$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx ;;;text{to} ;;;int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$ you do two things: you moved the $2i$ on top, and multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$. However, you need to also multiply the top by $e^{ix}$ as well to maintain equality. Thus the latter integral should be $$int frac{2i cdot e^{ix}}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 2:57






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Also, to touch on the matter on why you can't use the complex form ... well, as far I know there's no reason you can't, it's just that the original integrand is a function of real values, which outputs values which are also real values. That's generally something I believe we desire in a derivative or antiderivative, i.e. we also want the antiderivative here to be a function of real variables, where $e^{2ix}$ is going to put complex values into the $tan^{-1}$ function. Not that it's invalid, necessarily, as far as I know, just not desirable.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 3:04








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    There are also two more mistakes. First, that's the wrong complex form for $cos$; it should just be $frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$, no division by $i$. Second, $v(v+1)=v^2+v$, not $v^2+1$. Fixing all of the mistakes, a correct complex-form antiderivative for $sec x$ is $-2iarctan(e^{ix})+C$. Note that the arctangent of a complex number with absolute value $1$ lies on one of the vertical lines with $x$-coordinate $frac{pi}{4}$ or $-frac{pi}{4}$ plus a multiple of $pi$. This is not a very convenient form.
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    Jan 4 at 4:18
















2












$begingroup$


I've just begun learning how to integrate and I wanted to see if I could integrate $sec(x)$ by $u$-substitution. After getting my answer, I was told it couldn't be in complex form, but why, and if so, where did I go wrong? Here is how I did it:
$$int sec(x) dx$$
$$int frac{1}{cos(x)} dx$$
$$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx$$
$$int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
$u=2ix,du=2idx$
$$int frac{1}{e^u+1}du$$
$$int frac{e^u}{e^u(e^u+1)}du$$
$v=e^u,dv=e^udu$
$$int frac{1}{v^2+1}dv$$
$[arctan(v)]$



$[arctan(e^u)]$



$arctan(e^{2ix}) + C$






integration indefinite-integrals trigonometric-integrals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is this right? I was told I couldn't leave my answer in complex form. If so, is that the only answer, or are there other answers?
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 2:51






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    $$intfrac{1}{cos(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{cos^2(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{1-sin^2(x)}dx$$... and we are done.
    $endgroup$
    – Ixion
    Jan 4 at 2:53








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Your solution is incorrect: the error is in going from $$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx ;;;text{to} ;;;int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$ you do two things: you moved the $2i$ on top, and multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$. However, you need to also multiply the top by $e^{ix}$ as well to maintain equality. Thus the latter integral should be $$int frac{2i cdot e^{ix}}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 2:57






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Also, to touch on the matter on why you can't use the complex form ... well, as far I know there's no reason you can't, it's just that the original integrand is a function of real values, which outputs values which are also real values. That's generally something I believe we desire in a derivative or antiderivative, i.e. we also want the antiderivative here to be a function of real variables, where $e^{2ix}$ is going to put complex values into the $tan^{-1}$ function. Not that it's invalid, necessarily, as far as I know, just not desirable.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 3:04








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    There are also two more mistakes. First, that's the wrong complex form for $cos$; it should just be $frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$, no division by $i$. Second, $v(v+1)=v^2+v$, not $v^2+1$. Fixing all of the mistakes, a correct complex-form antiderivative for $sec x$ is $-2iarctan(e^{ix})+C$. Note that the arctangent of a complex number with absolute value $1$ lies on one of the vertical lines with $x$-coordinate $frac{pi}{4}$ or $-frac{pi}{4}$ plus a multiple of $pi$. This is not a very convenient form.
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    Jan 4 at 4:18














2












2








2





$begingroup$


I've just begun learning how to integrate and I wanted to see if I could integrate $sec(x)$ by $u$-substitution. After getting my answer, I was told it couldn't be in complex form, but why, and if so, where did I go wrong? Here is how I did it:
$$int sec(x) dx$$
$$int frac{1}{cos(x)} dx$$
$$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx$$
$$int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
$u=2ix,du=2idx$
$$int frac{1}{e^u+1}du$$
$$int frac{e^u}{e^u(e^u+1)}du$$
$v=e^u,dv=e^udu$
$$int frac{1}{v^2+1}dv$$
$[arctan(v)]$



$[arctan(e^u)]$



$arctan(e^{2ix}) + C$






integration indefinite-integrals trigonometric-integrals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I've just begun learning how to integrate and I wanted to see if I could integrate $sec(x)$ by $u$-substitution. After getting my answer, I was told it couldn't be in complex form, but why, and if so, where did I go wrong? Here is how I did it:
$$int sec(x) dx$$
$$int frac{1}{cos(x)} dx$$
$$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx$$
$$int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
$u=2ix,du=2idx$
$$int frac{1}{e^u+1}du$$
$$int frac{e^u}{e^u(e^u+1)}du$$
$v=e^u,dv=e^udu$
$$int frac{1}{v^2+1}dv$$
$[arctan(v)]$



$[arctan(e^u)]$



$arctan(e^{2ix}) + C$






integration indefinite-integrals trigonometric-integrals




integration indefinite-integrals trigonometric-integrals






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 4 at 4:18









max_zorn

3,36361329




3,36361329










asked Jan 4 at 2:49









Jon dueJon due

788




788








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is this right? I was told I couldn't leave my answer in complex form. If so, is that the only answer, or are there other answers?
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 2:51






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    $$intfrac{1}{cos(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{cos^2(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{1-sin^2(x)}dx$$... and we are done.
    $endgroup$
    – Ixion
    Jan 4 at 2:53








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Your solution is incorrect: the error is in going from $$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx ;;;text{to} ;;;int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$ you do two things: you moved the $2i$ on top, and multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$. However, you need to also multiply the top by $e^{ix}$ as well to maintain equality. Thus the latter integral should be $$int frac{2i cdot e^{ix}}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 2:57






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Also, to touch on the matter on why you can't use the complex form ... well, as far I know there's no reason you can't, it's just that the original integrand is a function of real values, which outputs values which are also real values. That's generally something I believe we desire in a derivative or antiderivative, i.e. we also want the antiderivative here to be a function of real variables, where $e^{2ix}$ is going to put complex values into the $tan^{-1}$ function. Not that it's invalid, necessarily, as far as I know, just not desirable.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 3:04








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    There are also two more mistakes. First, that's the wrong complex form for $cos$; it should just be $frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$, no division by $i$. Second, $v(v+1)=v^2+v$, not $v^2+1$. Fixing all of the mistakes, a correct complex-form antiderivative for $sec x$ is $-2iarctan(e^{ix})+C$. Note that the arctangent of a complex number with absolute value $1$ lies on one of the vertical lines with $x$-coordinate $frac{pi}{4}$ or $-frac{pi}{4}$ plus a multiple of $pi$. This is not a very convenient form.
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    Jan 4 at 4:18














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is this right? I was told I couldn't leave my answer in complex form. If so, is that the only answer, or are there other answers?
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 2:51






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    $$intfrac{1}{cos(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{cos^2(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{1-sin^2(x)}dx$$... and we are done.
    $endgroup$
    – Ixion
    Jan 4 at 2:53








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Your solution is incorrect: the error is in going from $$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx ;;;text{to} ;;;int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$ you do two things: you moved the $2i$ on top, and multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$. However, you need to also multiply the top by $e^{ix}$ as well to maintain equality. Thus the latter integral should be $$int frac{2i cdot e^{ix}}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 2:57






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Also, to touch on the matter on why you can't use the complex form ... well, as far I know there's no reason you can't, it's just that the original integrand is a function of real values, which outputs values which are also real values. That's generally something I believe we desire in a derivative or antiderivative, i.e. we also want the antiderivative here to be a function of real variables, where $e^{2ix}$ is going to put complex values into the $tan^{-1}$ function. Not that it's invalid, necessarily, as far as I know, just not desirable.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 3:04








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    There are also two more mistakes. First, that's the wrong complex form for $cos$; it should just be $frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$, no division by $i$. Second, $v(v+1)=v^2+v$, not $v^2+1$. Fixing all of the mistakes, a correct complex-form antiderivative for $sec x$ is $-2iarctan(e^{ix})+C$. Note that the arctangent of a complex number with absolute value $1$ lies on one of the vertical lines with $x$-coordinate $frac{pi}{4}$ or $-frac{pi}{4}$ plus a multiple of $pi$. This is not a very convenient form.
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    Jan 4 at 4:18








1




1




$begingroup$
Is this right? I was told I couldn't leave my answer in complex form. If so, is that the only answer, or are there other answers?
$endgroup$
– Jon due
Jan 4 at 2:51




$begingroup$
Is this right? I was told I couldn't leave my answer in complex form. If so, is that the only answer, or are there other answers?
$endgroup$
– Jon due
Jan 4 at 2:51




4




4




$begingroup$
$$intfrac{1}{cos(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{cos^2(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{1-sin^2(x)}dx$$... and we are done.
$endgroup$
– Ixion
Jan 4 at 2:53






$begingroup$
$$intfrac{1}{cos(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{cos^2(x)}dx=intfrac{cos(x)}{1-sin^2(x)}dx$$... and we are done.
$endgroup$
– Ixion
Jan 4 at 2:53






2




2




$begingroup$
Your solution is incorrect: the error is in going from $$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx ;;;text{to} ;;;int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$ you do two things: you moved the $2i$ on top, and multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$. However, you need to also multiply the top by $e^{ix}$ as well to maintain equality. Thus the latter integral should be $$int frac{2i cdot e^{ix}}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Jan 4 at 2:57




$begingroup$
Your solution is incorrect: the error is in going from $$int frac{1}{frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2i}}dx ;;;text{to} ;;;int frac{2i}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$ you do two things: you moved the $2i$ on top, and multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$. However, you need to also multiply the top by $e^{ix}$ as well to maintain equality. Thus the latter integral should be $$int frac{2i cdot e^{ix}}{e^{2ix}+1}dx$$
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Jan 4 at 2:57




2




2




$begingroup$
Also, to touch on the matter on why you can't use the complex form ... well, as far I know there's no reason you can't, it's just that the original integrand is a function of real values, which outputs values which are also real values. That's generally something I believe we desire in a derivative or antiderivative, i.e. we also want the antiderivative here to be a function of real variables, where $e^{2ix}$ is going to put complex values into the $tan^{-1}$ function. Not that it's invalid, necessarily, as far as I know, just not desirable.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Jan 4 at 3:04






$begingroup$
Also, to touch on the matter on why you can't use the complex form ... well, as far I know there's no reason you can't, it's just that the original integrand is a function of real values, which outputs values which are also real values. That's generally something I believe we desire in a derivative or antiderivative, i.e. we also want the antiderivative here to be a function of real variables, where $e^{2ix}$ is going to put complex values into the $tan^{-1}$ function. Not that it's invalid, necessarily, as far as I know, just not desirable.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Jan 4 at 3:04






2




2




$begingroup$
There are also two more mistakes. First, that's the wrong complex form for $cos$; it should just be $frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$, no division by $i$. Second, $v(v+1)=v^2+v$, not $v^2+1$. Fixing all of the mistakes, a correct complex-form antiderivative for $sec x$ is $-2iarctan(e^{ix})+C$. Note that the arctangent of a complex number with absolute value $1$ lies on one of the vertical lines with $x$-coordinate $frac{pi}{4}$ or $-frac{pi}{4}$ plus a multiple of $pi$. This is not a very convenient form.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 4 at 4:18




$begingroup$
There are also two more mistakes. First, that's the wrong complex form for $cos$; it should just be $frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$, no division by $i$. Second, $v(v+1)=v^2+v$, not $v^2+1$. Fixing all of the mistakes, a correct complex-form antiderivative for $sec x$ is $-2iarctan(e^{ix})+C$. Note that the arctangent of a complex number with absolute value $1$ lies on one of the vertical lines with $x$-coordinate $frac{pi}{4}$ or $-frac{pi}{4}$ plus a multiple of $pi$. This is not a very convenient form.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 4 at 4:18










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Going from your $3$rd line to the $4$th, you have multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$ but not the numerator. Thus, your work after that will not be correct. Also, in general, as the original question is in reals, your final answer should also be only in reals, with this indicating why your final answer can't be correct.



Note I saw that Eevee Trainer just wrote about the mistake in the comments, along with a more detailed explanation.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I didn't multiply the denominator, I factored out a $e^{ix}$
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 2:58










  • $begingroup$
    Where/how exactly did you factor? Because I see no way to interpret the matter otherwise. (And even if you did factor it out, where did it go? It doesn't just disappear.)
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 3:00












  • $begingroup$
    I see the problem, never mind.
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 3:01










  • $begingroup$
    @Jondue Your original denominator was $frac{e_{ix} + e{-ix}}{2i}$, so to get to $e^{2ix} + 1$, you multiplied by $2i e^{ix}$. However, you only multiplied the numerator by $2i$.
    $endgroup$
    – John Omielan
    Jan 4 at 3:02





















3












$begingroup$

Just in case you were unaware there is another great trick to solving this integral:



begin{align}
int sec(x):dx &= int sec(x) cdot frac{sec(x) + tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx \
&= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx
end{align}



Here let $u = sec(x) + tan(x) rightarrow frac{du}{dx} = sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)$ and thus:



begin{align}
int sec(x):dx &= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{u}cdot frac{du}{sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)}\
&= int frac{1}{u}:du = ln|u| + C = lnleft|sec(x) + tan(x) right| + C
end{align}



Where $C$ is the constant of integration.



Personally, for someone new to integrating this is more of a 'special case' method rather than a formal method. But important to be be aware of nonetheless.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061262%2fintegral-of-secx-using-u-sub%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Going from your $3$rd line to the $4$th, you have multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$ but not the numerator. Thus, your work after that will not be correct. Also, in general, as the original question is in reals, your final answer should also be only in reals, with this indicating why your final answer can't be correct.



    Note I saw that Eevee Trainer just wrote about the mistake in the comments, along with a more detailed explanation.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I didn't multiply the denominator, I factored out a $e^{ix}$
      $endgroup$
      – Jon due
      Jan 4 at 2:58










    • $begingroup$
      Where/how exactly did you factor? Because I see no way to interpret the matter otherwise. (And even if you did factor it out, where did it go? It doesn't just disappear.)
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Jan 4 at 3:00












    • $begingroup$
      I see the problem, never mind.
      $endgroup$
      – Jon due
      Jan 4 at 3:01










    • $begingroup$
      @Jondue Your original denominator was $frac{e_{ix} + e{-ix}}{2i}$, so to get to $e^{2ix} + 1$, you multiplied by $2i e^{ix}$. However, you only multiplied the numerator by $2i$.
      $endgroup$
      – John Omielan
      Jan 4 at 3:02


















    3












    $begingroup$

    Going from your $3$rd line to the $4$th, you have multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$ but not the numerator. Thus, your work after that will not be correct. Also, in general, as the original question is in reals, your final answer should also be only in reals, with this indicating why your final answer can't be correct.



    Note I saw that Eevee Trainer just wrote about the mistake in the comments, along with a more detailed explanation.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I didn't multiply the denominator, I factored out a $e^{ix}$
      $endgroup$
      – Jon due
      Jan 4 at 2:58










    • $begingroup$
      Where/how exactly did you factor? Because I see no way to interpret the matter otherwise. (And even if you did factor it out, where did it go? It doesn't just disappear.)
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Jan 4 at 3:00












    • $begingroup$
      I see the problem, never mind.
      $endgroup$
      – Jon due
      Jan 4 at 3:01










    • $begingroup$
      @Jondue Your original denominator was $frac{e_{ix} + e{-ix}}{2i}$, so to get to $e^{2ix} + 1$, you multiplied by $2i e^{ix}$. However, you only multiplied the numerator by $2i$.
      $endgroup$
      – John Omielan
      Jan 4 at 3:02
















    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    Going from your $3$rd line to the $4$th, you have multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$ but not the numerator. Thus, your work after that will not be correct. Also, in general, as the original question is in reals, your final answer should also be only in reals, with this indicating why your final answer can't be correct.



    Note I saw that Eevee Trainer just wrote about the mistake in the comments, along with a more detailed explanation.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Going from your $3$rd line to the $4$th, you have multiplied the denominator by $e^{ix}$ but not the numerator. Thus, your work after that will not be correct. Also, in general, as the original question is in reals, your final answer should also be only in reals, with this indicating why your final answer can't be correct.



    Note I saw that Eevee Trainer just wrote about the mistake in the comments, along with a more detailed explanation.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jan 4 at 3:03

























    answered Jan 4 at 2:57









    John OmielanJohn Omielan

    1,951210




    1,951210












    • $begingroup$
      I didn't multiply the denominator, I factored out a $e^{ix}$
      $endgroup$
      – Jon due
      Jan 4 at 2:58










    • $begingroup$
      Where/how exactly did you factor? Because I see no way to interpret the matter otherwise. (And even if you did factor it out, where did it go? It doesn't just disappear.)
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Jan 4 at 3:00












    • $begingroup$
      I see the problem, never mind.
      $endgroup$
      – Jon due
      Jan 4 at 3:01










    • $begingroup$
      @Jondue Your original denominator was $frac{e_{ix} + e{-ix}}{2i}$, so to get to $e^{2ix} + 1$, you multiplied by $2i e^{ix}$. However, you only multiplied the numerator by $2i$.
      $endgroup$
      – John Omielan
      Jan 4 at 3:02




















    • $begingroup$
      I didn't multiply the denominator, I factored out a $e^{ix}$
      $endgroup$
      – Jon due
      Jan 4 at 2:58










    • $begingroup$
      Where/how exactly did you factor? Because I see no way to interpret the matter otherwise. (And even if you did factor it out, where did it go? It doesn't just disappear.)
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Jan 4 at 3:00












    • $begingroup$
      I see the problem, never mind.
      $endgroup$
      – Jon due
      Jan 4 at 3:01










    • $begingroup$
      @Jondue Your original denominator was $frac{e_{ix} + e{-ix}}{2i}$, so to get to $e^{2ix} + 1$, you multiplied by $2i e^{ix}$. However, you only multiplied the numerator by $2i$.
      $endgroup$
      – John Omielan
      Jan 4 at 3:02


















    $begingroup$
    I didn't multiply the denominator, I factored out a $e^{ix}$
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 2:58




    $begingroup$
    I didn't multiply the denominator, I factored out a $e^{ix}$
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 2:58












    $begingroup$
    Where/how exactly did you factor? Because I see no way to interpret the matter otherwise. (And even if you did factor it out, where did it go? It doesn't just disappear.)
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 3:00






    $begingroup$
    Where/how exactly did you factor? Because I see no way to interpret the matter otherwise. (And even if you did factor it out, where did it go? It doesn't just disappear.)
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Jan 4 at 3:00














    $begingroup$
    I see the problem, never mind.
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 3:01




    $begingroup$
    I see the problem, never mind.
    $endgroup$
    – Jon due
    Jan 4 at 3:01












    $begingroup$
    @Jondue Your original denominator was $frac{e_{ix} + e{-ix}}{2i}$, so to get to $e^{2ix} + 1$, you multiplied by $2i e^{ix}$. However, you only multiplied the numerator by $2i$.
    $endgroup$
    – John Omielan
    Jan 4 at 3:02






    $begingroup$
    @Jondue Your original denominator was $frac{e_{ix} + e{-ix}}{2i}$, so to get to $e^{2ix} + 1$, you multiplied by $2i e^{ix}$. However, you only multiplied the numerator by $2i$.
    $endgroup$
    – John Omielan
    Jan 4 at 3:02













    3












    $begingroup$

    Just in case you were unaware there is another great trick to solving this integral:



    begin{align}
    int sec(x):dx &= int sec(x) cdot frac{sec(x) + tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx \
    &= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx
    end{align}



    Here let $u = sec(x) + tan(x) rightarrow frac{du}{dx} = sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)$ and thus:



    begin{align}
    int sec(x):dx &= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{u}cdot frac{du}{sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)}\
    &= int frac{1}{u}:du = ln|u| + C = lnleft|sec(x) + tan(x) right| + C
    end{align}



    Where $C$ is the constant of integration.



    Personally, for someone new to integrating this is more of a 'special case' method rather than a formal method. But important to be be aware of nonetheless.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      3












      $begingroup$

      Just in case you were unaware there is another great trick to solving this integral:



      begin{align}
      int sec(x):dx &= int sec(x) cdot frac{sec(x) + tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx \
      &= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx
      end{align}



      Here let $u = sec(x) + tan(x) rightarrow frac{du}{dx} = sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)$ and thus:



      begin{align}
      int sec(x):dx &= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{u}cdot frac{du}{sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)}\
      &= int frac{1}{u}:du = ln|u| + C = lnleft|sec(x) + tan(x) right| + C
      end{align}



      Where $C$ is the constant of integration.



      Personally, for someone new to integrating this is more of a 'special case' method rather than a formal method. But important to be be aware of nonetheless.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        Just in case you were unaware there is another great trick to solving this integral:



        begin{align}
        int sec(x):dx &= int sec(x) cdot frac{sec(x) + tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx \
        &= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx
        end{align}



        Here let $u = sec(x) + tan(x) rightarrow frac{du}{dx} = sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)$ and thus:



        begin{align}
        int sec(x):dx &= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{u}cdot frac{du}{sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)}\
        &= int frac{1}{u}:du = ln|u| + C = lnleft|sec(x) + tan(x) right| + C
        end{align}



        Where $C$ is the constant of integration.



        Personally, for someone new to integrating this is more of a 'special case' method rather than a formal method. But important to be be aware of nonetheless.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Just in case you were unaware there is another great trick to solving this integral:



        begin{align}
        int sec(x):dx &= int sec(x) cdot frac{sec(x) + tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx \
        &= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{sec(x) + tan(x)}:dx
        end{align}



        Here let $u = sec(x) + tan(x) rightarrow frac{du}{dx} = sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)$ and thus:



        begin{align}
        int sec(x):dx &= int frac{sec^2(x) + sec(x)tan(x)}{u}cdot frac{du}{sec(x)tan(x) + sec^2(x)}\
        &= int frac{1}{u}:du = ln|u| + C = lnleft|sec(x) + tan(x) right| + C
        end{align}



        Where $C$ is the constant of integration.



        Personally, for someone new to integrating this is more of a 'special case' method rather than a formal method. But important to be be aware of nonetheless.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 4 at 6:52









        DavidGDavidG

        2,2651721




        2,2651721






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061262%2fintegral-of-secx-using-u-sub%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Human spaceflight

            Image
            Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e
            Read more

            Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

            Image
            0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB]
            Read more

            File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg

            Image
            File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search File File history File usage No higher resolution available. DeusFollowingSea.jpg ‎ (238 × 211 pixels, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg ) Summary [ edit ] Media data and Non-free use rationale Description Cover art of the Deus CD Following Sea Author or copyright owner Deus Source (WP:NFCC#4) rocksucker.co.uk Date of publication 2012 Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Following Sea Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) n.a. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Low res image used in infobox of the article on the album Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) n.a. Fair use Fair use of co
            Read more