![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
My 25th ed. of the CRC Standard Math Tables is clearly authored by William H. Beyer and not Daniel Zwillinger. Should this be mentioned in the references section? -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 15:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know the integral for finding the volume of a section of a cylinder, such as a tank containing a liquid. (If I have a tank r=48" and length=96" and I want to know how many gallons are in the tank at say 20" deep).
If it's a cylinder then you don't need an integral, just use the area of a cylinder formula. RageGarden 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,what about adding another section - list of definite integrals? I think it would be very helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.231.80.128 ( talk) 07:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
But definite integrals are the same as the indefinite integrals without the C... RageGarden 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I imagine they may be asking about definite integrals for which the integrand has no closed-form antiderivative. Offhand, I don't know how useful such a collection would be. Doctormatt 04:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is sin^n x doing under the heading "Definite integrals lacking closed-form antiderivatives"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.29.75 ( talk) 15:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The merge tag has been there since Jan 07, with no discussion.
I support the merge as it would put the most common integral which many people will be looking for in an easy to find place. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what it was like in January 07 but I like the list as it stands right now. Sometimes you want the list of other lists and sometimes you want the whole page.
The merge makes good sense. Same content, same page. That's how encyclopedias work, right? (kaesle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.181 ( talk) 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I also support a merge; especially as part of the Calculus template, the Integrals list contrasts with the Derivatives table. I think the tables should link to the pages on the "list" page as a "For more information" thing, and have the additional content at the end. King 07:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If there was anyone interested, something that I think would be neat would be to be able to click on any of the formulas from the list of integrals and get redirected to another page with the proof on it. It would be a lot of work, but if someone really liked math, or was bored enough, they could do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurJohnJones ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
On the eqworld site whenever you click a integral group from the list it just links to the sosmathematics page, i was just wondering if you knew this and weather both links are needed
I noticed sometimes arc* is used and sometimes *^-1 is used. Is there a particular reason for this? -- Snaxe/fow ( talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Besavilla: Engineering Review Center, Engineering Mathmatics (Formulas), Mini Booklet (sic)
I don't think this is a good primary (or even secondary) reference. This is just review material (essentially a collection of knowledge and formulas, sometimes without context) for people who want to take the licensure exams for engineers. Iccruz ( talk) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
At the moment we have:
The first one is wrong, as the first plus should be a minus. Both are probably computer-generated because they contain redundancies. Wouldn't these versions be better:
Xanthoxyl < 12:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, couldn't we just simplify it fully:
Xanthoxyl < 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
-- MathFacts ( talk) 21:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
But I get for example and I can't reconcile it with those versions of the antiderivatives. Xanthoxyl < 05:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think there must be issues here (involving complex arguments) that I'm not aware of. Xanthoxyl < 05:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
--
MathFacts (
talk)
14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I question the title of the section Lists of integrals#Composed functions. The integrands are products of trigonometric and exponential functions. This is not what I would normally think of as composed functions. I was expecting the section to have something like
Can we not think of a better title? JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It has been pointed out to me by a new User:Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi that the integrals of absolute values of trigonometric functions are wrong. Does anyone have a source? I've looked in a couple of formulae books with integral tables but of all things they don't have the functions listed in that WP section. I'll keep looking around also, just thought to notify the project. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Notice that
as long as one does not cross any discontinuity of the step function sgn(f(x)). At those discontinuities, one should modify the value of the "constant" C to make the anti-derivatives equal, that is, the limit from the left and the limit from the right should be equal so that the whole anti-derivative is continuous. JRSpriggs ( talk) 12:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"If g is an anti-derivative of a continuous function f such that f(x)=0 implies g(x)=0, then..." — does it make sense? Between two adjacent roots (zeros), the continuous function f cannot change the sign, thus its integral over this interval cannot vanish (unless the function vanishes on the whole interval), therefore g cannot vanish at both endpoints. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In the section Lists of integrals#Definite integrals lacking closed-form antiderivatives, one finds this formula
It is equivalent to saying
which is a slight variation of the trapezoid rule for numerical integration on a uniform grid. It just leaves out the end-points, f(a) and f(b), which disappear in the limit anyway. So I wonder whether this is an appropriate thing to have in this article and section since it is about numerical integration rather than a formula for integrating some specific function. What do you-all think? JRSpriggs ( talk) 03:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm rating this list as high priority and assigning it to the "analysis" field (which covers calculus). Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 16:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
in the section "definitive integrals lacking closed-form antiderivatives" one finds this formula
and the next one
Where does the variable m come from? How is one supposed to use the formula not knowing that?
Nichi-kun ( talk) 09:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's my opinion that these lists of integrals would be significantly easier to read if the equality symbol for each formula was aligned in each row. I have created a short demo of how this would look (and appear in source) at User:Jounce/Integral list format.
Since this would be a large change I am merely leaving this here as a suggestion. Please comment if you agree or disagree with the change. Thank you. Jounce ( talk) 19:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lists of integrals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
My 25th ed. of the CRC Standard Math Tables is clearly authored by William H. Beyer and not Daniel Zwillinger. Should this be mentioned in the references section? -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 15:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know the integral for finding the volume of a section of a cylinder, such as a tank containing a liquid. (If I have a tank r=48" and length=96" and I want to know how many gallons are in the tank at say 20" deep).
If it's a cylinder then you don't need an integral, just use the area of a cylinder formula. RageGarden 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,what about adding another section - list of definite integrals? I think it would be very helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.231.80.128 ( talk) 07:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
But definite integrals are the same as the indefinite integrals without the C... RageGarden 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I imagine they may be asking about definite integrals for which the integrand has no closed-form antiderivative. Offhand, I don't know how useful such a collection would be. Doctormatt 04:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is sin^n x doing under the heading "Definite integrals lacking closed-form antiderivatives"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.29.75 ( talk) 15:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The merge tag has been there since Jan 07, with no discussion.
I support the merge as it would put the most common integral which many people will be looking for in an easy to find place. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what it was like in January 07 but I like the list as it stands right now. Sometimes you want the list of other lists and sometimes you want the whole page.
The merge makes good sense. Same content, same page. That's how encyclopedias work, right? (kaesle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.181 ( talk) 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I also support a merge; especially as part of the Calculus template, the Integrals list contrasts with the Derivatives table. I think the tables should link to the pages on the "list" page as a "For more information" thing, and have the additional content at the end. King 07:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If there was anyone interested, something that I think would be neat would be to be able to click on any of the formulas from the list of integrals and get redirected to another page with the proof on it. It would be a lot of work, but if someone really liked math, or was bored enough, they could do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurJohnJones ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
On the eqworld site whenever you click a integral group from the list it just links to the sosmathematics page, i was just wondering if you knew this and weather both links are needed
I noticed sometimes arc* is used and sometimes *^-1 is used. Is there a particular reason for this? -- Snaxe/fow ( talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Besavilla: Engineering Review Center, Engineering Mathmatics (Formulas), Mini Booklet (sic)
I don't think this is a good primary (or even secondary) reference. This is just review material (essentially a collection of knowledge and formulas, sometimes without context) for people who want to take the licensure exams for engineers. Iccruz ( talk) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
At the moment we have:
The first one is wrong, as the first plus should be a minus. Both are probably computer-generated because they contain redundancies. Wouldn't these versions be better:
Xanthoxyl < 12:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, couldn't we just simplify it fully:
Xanthoxyl < 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
-- MathFacts ( talk) 21:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
But I get for example and I can't reconcile it with those versions of the antiderivatives. Xanthoxyl < 05:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think there must be issues here (involving complex arguments) that I'm not aware of. Xanthoxyl < 05:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
--
MathFacts (
talk)
14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I question the title of the section Lists of integrals#Composed functions. The integrands are products of trigonometric and exponential functions. This is not what I would normally think of as composed functions. I was expecting the section to have something like
Can we not think of a better title? JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It has been pointed out to me by a new User:Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi that the integrals of absolute values of trigonometric functions are wrong. Does anyone have a source? I've looked in a couple of formulae books with integral tables but of all things they don't have the functions listed in that WP section. I'll keep looking around also, just thought to notify the project. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Notice that
as long as one does not cross any discontinuity of the step function sgn(f(x)). At those discontinuities, one should modify the value of the "constant" C to make the anti-derivatives equal, that is, the limit from the left and the limit from the right should be equal so that the whole anti-derivative is continuous. JRSpriggs ( talk) 12:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"If g is an anti-derivative of a continuous function f such that f(x)=0 implies g(x)=0, then..." — does it make sense? Between two adjacent roots (zeros), the continuous function f cannot change the sign, thus its integral over this interval cannot vanish (unless the function vanishes on the whole interval), therefore g cannot vanish at both endpoints. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In the section Lists of integrals#Definite integrals lacking closed-form antiderivatives, one finds this formula
It is equivalent to saying
which is a slight variation of the trapezoid rule for numerical integration on a uniform grid. It just leaves out the end-points, f(a) and f(b), which disappear in the limit anyway. So I wonder whether this is an appropriate thing to have in this article and section since it is about numerical integration rather than a formula for integrating some specific function. What do you-all think? JRSpriggs ( talk) 03:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm rating this list as high priority and assigning it to the "analysis" field (which covers calculus). Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 16:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
in the section "definitive integrals lacking closed-form antiderivatives" one finds this formula
and the next one
Where does the variable m come from? How is one supposed to use the formula not knowing that?
Nichi-kun ( talk) 09:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's my opinion that these lists of integrals would be significantly easier to read if the equality symbol for each formula was aligned in each row. I have created a short demo of how this would look (and appear in source) at User:Jounce/Integral list format.
Since this would be a large change I am merely leaving this here as a suggestion. Please comment if you agree or disagree with the change. Thank you. Jounce ( talk) 19:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lists of integrals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)