Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.math.symbolic    |    Symbolic algebra discussion    |    10,432 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 9,223 of 10,432    |
|    Albert Rich to clicl...@freenet.de    |
|    Re: integration of sec(t)    |
|    14 Dec 16 21:17:25    |
      From: Albert_Rich@msn.com              On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 7:05:47 AM UTC-10, clicl...@freenet.de       wrote:       > Albert Rich schrieb:       > >       > > What would you recommend changing it to?       > >       >       > I don't necessarily recommend to change it: What is the most appropriate       > antiderivative should follow from your choice of design principles.       >       > In fact, I myself seem to have introduced antiderivatives of the       > ATANH(SIN(t)) type in my sci.math.symbolic post of Sun, 21 Apr 2013       > 18:20:53 +0200 to the thread "An independent integration test suite".       >       > This form of antiderivative is real on the entire real line just as the       > integrand is. The alternative LN(TAN(pi/4 + t/2)) is almost as simple,       > but its branch cuts in the complex plane are less disruptive while its       > imaginary part along the real line jumps between zero and pi.       >       > Many of the antiderivatives that exhibit logarithmic poles should admit       > two or more alternative forms like this.       >       > Martin.              A design principle I value highly is the symmetry between the trig and       hyperbolic functions. For the antiderivatives of sec(x) and csc(x), Rubi       currently returns               arctanh(sin(x)) and -arctanh(cos(x))              respectively. For the antiderivatives of sech(x) and csch(x), it returns               arctan(sinh(x)) and -arctanh(cosh(x))              respectively. All nicely symmetric, except for there being just one arctan       and but three arctanhs...              I guess if a Rubi user changes the antiderivative of sec(x) to               log(tan(x/2+pi/4)),              he or she should also change the antiderivative of csc(x) to               log(tan(x/2)).              And for symmetry, should he or she also change the antiderivatives of sech(x)       and csch(x) to               i*log(tanh(x/2+pi*i/4)) and log(tanh(x/2))              respectively, where i is the imaginary unit?              Albert              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca