Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Again:

$$\int e^{\alpha x}\cos(\beta x) \space dx = \frac{e^{\alpha x} (\alpha \cos(\beta x)+\beta \sin(\beta x))}{\alpha^2+\beta^2}$$

Also the one for $\sin$:

$$\int e^{\alpha x}\sin(\beta x) \space dx = \frac{e^{\alpha x} (\alpha \sin(\beta x)-\beta \cos(\beta x))}{\alpha^2+\beta^2}$$

Both help avoid integration by parts. I find these two proofs very useful and I'd like to know what their names are.

share|improve this question
1  
You can use \sin and \cos in LaTeX to make your problem more readable. –  Tyler Feb 1 '11 at 2:04
    
@tyler: ah thanks! I should've thought of that. It's my first time actually writing something complicated. –  JustcallmeDrago Feb 1 '11 at 2:07
    
@Tyler Bailey: Just wondering, how did you edit that post? Don't you need 2000 reputation? –  PEV Feb 1 '11 at 2:12
1  
What you have given here is an identity, and can ask for it's name. You haven't actually given any proof... –  Aryabhata Feb 1 '11 at 2:26
5  
I seriously doubt those equalities have a name: they are just indefinite integrals, and there are way too many of those to name them... –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 1 '11 at 3:52

3 Answers 3

up vote 12 down vote accepted

They are the real and imaginary parts of the following identity: $$ \int{e^{(\alpha+i\beta)x}dx} = \frac{e^{(\alpha+i\beta)x}}{\alpha+i\beta} = \frac{(\alpha - i\beta)e^{(\alpha+i\beta)x}}{\alpha^2 + \beta^2}. $$

share|improve this answer
    
Does it have a name? –  JustcallmeDrago Feb 1 '11 at 3:04
    
and also: Wait, what? Could you give some explanation on how that relates to my identity? I don't understand how trig becomes something containing $i$ –  JustcallmeDrago Feb 1 '11 at 3:07
3  
@JustcallmeDrago Take a look at Euler's formula and you'll see the relationship. –  Adrián Barquero Feb 1 '11 at 3:15
1  
@mjqxxxx Now that is a very clever way to find them! –  Pedro Tamaroff Apr 29 '12 at 1:01

I answered this in another question, but I think it might apply better here:


In general, if you want to find $$ \int e^{ax}\cdot \sin{bx}\cdot dx$$ you can argue as follows:

Note that for any $\alpha$ or $\beta$, you have

$$\eqalign{ & \frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {{e^{\alpha x}}\sin \beta x} \right) = \alpha {e^{\alpha x}}\sin \beta x + \beta {e^{\alpha x}}\cos \beta x \cr & \frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {{e^{\alpha x}}\cos \beta x} \right) = \alpha {e^{\alpha x}}\cos \beta x - \beta {e^{\alpha x}}\sin \beta x \cr} $$

so that any integral of the form

$$ \int e^{\alpha x}\cdot \sin{\beta x}\cdot dx$$

is a linear combination of the former functions. Let's then find $c_1$ and $c_2$ such that

$$\frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {{c_1}{e^{\alpha x}}\sin \beta x + {c_2}{e^{\alpha x}}\cos \beta x} \right) = {e^{\alpha x}}\sin \beta x$$

$${c_1}\alpha {e^{\alpha x}}\sin \beta x + {c_1}\beta {e^{\alpha x}}\cos \beta x + {c_2}\alpha {e^{\alpha x}}\cos \beta x - {c_2}\beta {e^{\alpha x}}\sin \beta x = {e^{\alpha x}}\sin \beta x$$

This means we need

$$\eqalign{ & {c_1}\alpha - {c_2}\beta = 1 \cr & {c_1}\beta + {c_2}\alpha = 0 \cr} $$

This will yield with little work

$$\eqalign{ & {c_1} = \frac{\alpha }{{{\alpha ^2} + {\beta ^2}}} \cr & {c_2} = - \frac{\beta }{{{\alpha ^2} + {\beta ^2}}} \cr} $$

which means that, in general:

$$\int {{e^{\alpha x}}} \cdot\sin \beta x\cdot dx = {e^{\alpha x}}\frac{{\alpha \sin \beta x - \beta \cos \beta x}}{{{\alpha ^2} + {\beta ^2}}} + C$$

Analogously, you will get that

$$\int {{e^{\alpha x}}} \cdot\cos \beta x\cdot dx = {e^{\alpha x}}\frac{{\alpha \cos \beta x + \beta \sin \beta x}}{{{\alpha ^2} + {\beta ^2}}} + C$$


This has no formal name, it is just a formula for finding a primitive.

share|improve this answer

HINT

Generally, if we denote $A=\int e^{a x} \cdot \cos (b x) \ dx$ and $B=\int e^{a x} \cdot \sin (b x) \ dx$ and integrate by parts A and B, then we obtain an easy-to-solve system in $A$ and $B$. But this is just another possible approach. However, mjqxxxx's approach is by far a better one.

Chris.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.