it seems they are used in the exact same circumstances:
So my question is, is there ever any significant difference in the effect of hyperbolic vs trig substitutions to simplify an integrands?
So far I have considered:
(1) Some of these are easier to differentiate and integrate than others.
Sin(x) is "easier" than Tanh(x)
cosh is "easier" than sec
sinh is "easier" than tan
Based on that, Is it a good idea to simply ignore the other substitutions since these will always be simpler?
Although for me, I've already memorised the differentials and integrals for all base functions, their reciprocals and inverses so I'm not sure if this is useful to me.
(2) Hyperbolic terms can be easily substituted into their exponential form, which is easy to integrate. You can do the same for Trig though, but with imaginary numbers. I don't know if that's a big deal though, it seems easy enough to use euler's identity to cancel the imaginary numbers in the end. (assuming the antiderivative is real)
(3) Hyperbolic subs are more "exotic" and may help me seduce my maths teacher
So is there ever a situation where hyperbolic will be far more effective than trig subs or vice versa?
thanks
Component | Substitution Comparison |
[math]\sqrt{a^2 - x^2 }[/math] | [math]x = a\tanh{\theta}[/math][math]x = a\sin{\theta}[/math] |
[math]\sqrt{x^2 - a^2 }[/math] | [math]x = a\sec{\theta}[/math][math]x = a\cosh{\theta}[/math] |
[math]\sqrt{x^2 + a^2 }[/math] | [math]x = a\sinh{\theta}[/math][math]x = a\tan{\theta}[/math] |
So my question is, is there ever any significant difference in the effect of hyperbolic vs trig substitutions to simplify an integrands?
So far I have considered:
(1) Some of these are easier to differentiate and integrate than others.
Sin(x) is "easier" than Tanh(x)
cosh is "easier" than sec
sinh is "easier" than tan
Based on that, Is it a good idea to simply ignore the other substitutions since these will always be simpler?
Although for me, I've already memorised the differentials and integrals for all base functions, their reciprocals and inverses so I'm not sure if this is useful to me.
(2) Hyperbolic terms can be easily substituted into their exponential form, which is easy to integrate. You can do the same for Trig though, but with imaginary numbers. I don't know if that's a big deal though, it seems easy enough to use euler's identity to cancel the imaginary numbers in the end. (assuming the antiderivative is real)
(3) Hyperbolic subs are more "exotic" and may help me seduce my maths teacher
So is there ever a situation where hyperbolic will be far more effective than trig subs or vice versa?
thanks