Help, what does this even mean?
\[f(x)=\sum_{N}^{n=1}a_n \cos(nx)\], find \[\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}f(x)\cos(mx)dx\] where m,n are integers.
The bounds on your summation are upside down :) No big deal though, thinking
whoops hehe. thanks.
\[\large\rm \int\limits_0^{\pi}\color{orangered}{f(x)}\cos(mx)dx\quad=\quad\int\limits_0^{\pi}\color{orangered}{\sum_{n=1}^{N}\cos(nx)}\cos(mx)dx\]And uhhhh, I guess we're allowed to do this, ya?\[\large\rm \sum_{n=1}^{N}~\int\limits_0^{\pi}\cos(nx)\cos(mx)dx\]And then you can apply this weird trig identity,\[\large\rm \sum_{n=1}^{N}~\int\limits\limits_0^{\pi}\frac{1}{2}\left(\cos\left[(m-n)x\right]+\cos\left[(m+n)x\right]\right)dx\]Hmm that's too many brackets..\[\large\rm \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{N}~\int\limits\limits\limits_0^{\pi}\cos\left[(m-n)x\right]+\cos\left[(m+n)x\right]~dx\]
And then ummmm, is this one of those things where all they all work out to zero except the case where m=n or something? mmm thinking...
yes :P
\(\int \limits_0^\pi \cos mx \cos nx dx = 0 \\ m \ne n\)
so that bound is a constant?
and what happened to the "a_n"?
\(\int_0^\pi \cos^2 x = \pi/2 +c\)
Oh I dropped the A_n's woops :[
note: when n = m, the co-efficient is a_m which is anyways a constant \(\int_0^\pi a_m \cos^2 x =a_m \pi/2 +c\)
and all the other integral are anyways 0 :)
a_n not a_m o.0
n goes from 1 to N when n = 1, its a1 when n = 2, its a2 ... when n = m, its a_m
but..at the same time we don't when n=m ? because we want it to =0 ?
\[\sum_{N}^{n=1}\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}a_ncos(nx)\cos(mx)dx\] is that where the a_n would go? haha I got a bit lost after this point xD
yes, thats right. now we separate that out into 2 terms, one with n =m and the other with n NOT = m and we know, all the terms with n NOT = m are 0
\(\sum_{n=1}^{N, n \ne m}\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}a_ncos(nx)\cos(mx)dx + \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}a_m\cos^2(mx)dx \\ = 0+\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}a_m\cos^2(mx)dx \\= a_m \pi/2 + c \)
hm probably a silly question, where did you get the second term from? the a_mcos^2(mx) ? and also, then we have to do this whole process twice? (with m=n and n=/=m) why?
when n=m, \(a_n = a_m\) \(\cos mx \times \cos mx = \cos^2 mx\) we need to separate it out because the result of 2 integrals are different: \(\int \limits_0^\pi \cos mx \cos nx dx = 0 \\ m \ne n \\ \int_0^\pi a_m \cos^2 x =a_m \pi/2 +c\)
and we don't need that trig identity that zep brought up?
ignore that "+c", its definite integral! We would need that to prove that \(\int_0^\pi a_n \cos mx \cos nx =0\)
if we can directly not use it
right. o.o we should probably prove that haha
Sorry, my interwebs got ruined for a bit
Also when you read the \[a_m(\pi/2)\] did you forget to distribute the bound thingy? or is that just a bound?
its after plugging in upper and lower bounds.
hm ok
so we want to prove it = 0 ? \(\large\rm ~\int\limits\limits\limits_0^{\pi}\cos\left[(m-n)x\right]+\cos\left[(m+n)x\right]~dx\) whats the integral of cos?
Right. and in that we already have the a_n distributed? and isn't there a half in front of that?
sure sure...but since its anyways going to get 0, it won't matter :P
\[\sum_{N}^{n=1}\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}a_ncos(nx)\cos(mx)dx\]\[\sum_{N}^{n=1}\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\frac{ 1 }{ 2 }[\cos[(m-n)x]+\cos[(m+n)x]dx\] so the..a_n just sort of disappeared lol
Sorry, I like to make sure all the small things are taken care of xD #perfectionist o_o
its there \(\sum_{N}^{n=1}\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}a_n \frac{ 1 }{ 2 }[\cos[(m-n)x]+\cos[(m+n)x]dx\) and thats a good habit actually
haha thanks. It annoys some people :> ok so theen..we would pull out the 1/2 to the front as a constant
you can pull out a_n/2 altogether, but don't put it before the sum operator
\[\sum_{N}^{n=1}\frac{ 1 }{ 2 }a_n \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\cos[(m-n)x]+\cos[(m+n)x]dx\]
yes, now whats the integral of cos ax ?
\[\frac{ 1 }{ a }\sin(ax)+C\]
good so you you'll get the terms like \(\sin (m-n)\pi , \sin (m+n)\pi, \sin (m-n)0 , \sin (m+n)0 \) which are all 0! wanna give it a try yourself?
and the "1/a" part? o.0
1/a(0) = 0 :P
ou xD
let me seee
you'll get a m-n in the denominator for one terms. thats why n cannot be = m, otherwise denominator = 0 thats the reason we separate it out!
ok so.. Let me see if I understand correctly lol
\[\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\cos[(m-n)x]dx\]\[u=mx-nx\]\[du=mdx-ndx => (m-n)dx\]\[dx=\frac{ du }{ (m-n) }\]\[\frac{ 1 }{ (m-n)} \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\cos(u)du\]\[\frac{ 1 }{ (m-n) }[\sin[(m-n)x]]|^\pi_0\]
good going! continue
\[\frac{ 1 }{ (m-n) }[\sin[(m-n)\pi]-\sin[(m-n)0]]\]now sure how to evaluate those?
exactly at this step: 1. we say that \(m\ne n\), as denominator can't be 0 2. use the fact that \(\sin a\pi = 0\) for a = 0, \pi, 2pi, ...
hmhm
so \(\sin (m-n)\pi = 0 \\ \sin 0 = 0 \)
and the other one is just sin[(m-n)0] = 0 also :P yayay
Then the 1/(m-n) * 0 = 0
same thing with m+n :)
the m+n is the entire same process I just have to put a little + instead of - everywhere? xD
exactly
\[\sum_{N}^{n=1}\frac{ 1 }{ 2 }a_n[0-0]\]then...in the end we would have something like this?
oops that would be a 0+0 but whatever haha
right doesn't make a difference
and then that..just = 0?
but remember we said \(m \ne n\) so we have to consider the case when m= n
\[\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\sum_{N}^{n=1}a_ncos(nx)\cos(mx)dx\]\[\sum_{N}^{n=1}a_n \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\cos(nx)\cos(mx)dx\]\[\sum_{n=1}^{N, n \neq m}[\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}a_ncos(nx)\cos(mx)dx]+\sum_{n=1}^{N,n=m} \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}a_mcos^2m(x)dx\] see proof \[0+\sum_{n=1}^{N}a_m \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\cos^2(mx)dx\]
Does writing it like that make sense? xD lol aah so many parts.
when n=m we have \(a_m \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\cos^2(mx)dx\)
so your last step should not have the sum sign
to the right of the 0+ ?
yeah
its just one term, when n=m, so need of addition sign
I see :)
so now..we just need to calculate \[0+a_m \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\cos^2(mx)dx\]
which is an identity! yay ehhe
thank god lol
any more doubts? :)
Ikr. ok so because the mx is there would it be? \[\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\frac{ 1+\cos(2mx) }{ 2 }dx\]
correct
also there is an a_m
but its outside the integral, so nevermind
\[a_m \frac{ 1 }{ 2 }[x-\frac{ \sin(2mx) }{ 2m }]|^\pi_0\]...is that right? lol
why negative in between?
...I..felt like it xP yeah that should be a +
then good, continue with + in between
\[a_m[\frac{ x }{ 2 }+\frac{ \sin(2mx) }{ 4m }]|^\pi_0\]\[a_m[(\frac{ \pi }{ 2 }+\frac{ \sin(2m \pi) }{ 4m })-(\frac{ 0 }{ 2 }+\frac{ \sin(2m0) }{ 4m })]\]
you know whats sin 2mpi = ... ?
er..no o.0
0?
m is an integer, so 2m is also an integer sin 0 = sin 0pi = 0 sin 1pi = 0 sin 2 pi = 0 sin 3pi = 0 ... sin (integer)pi = 0 sin (2m pi) = 0 makes sense?
oh yes, because sin(pi) always equals 0 I see i se
that makes so much sense haha
\[a_m[\frac{ \pi }{ 2 }+0-0-0]\]\[0+a_m(\pi/2)\]\[=a_m(\frac{ \pi }{ 2 })\]wooo!!
yay! :D
You, sir, are a genius.
I just have a practice of these type of problems, but thanks anyways ^_^
:) it's a bunch of tiny steps o.o
What exactly is that trig identity that we used to get the 1/2 with the cos thing?
\(\Large \cos(A+B) + \cos(A-B) = 2 \cos A \cos B\)
aah glorious. ok:) So I think this is all done!! thanks!
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!