Results 1 to 8 of 8

- Dec 21st 2009, 08:30 AM #1

- Joined
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 79

- Dec 21st 2009, 08:39 PM #2

- Joined
- Nov 2005
- From
- someplace
- Posts
- 14,972
- Thanks
- 5

- Dec 23rd 2009, 05:37 AM #3

- Joined
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 18,446
- Thanks
- 2529

There is no

**predicate**in

"Prove that the integration

especially where y= x if R+ SX= 0"

Prove the the integeration is**what**? And it's not clear what "R+ SX= 0" means. Is "X" the same as "x"? If not, what is it? If so, R+ Sx= 0 is true for just one value of x, specifically x= -R/S.

The second equation can be written as by multiplying both sides by . And then the change of variable x= ln(t) gives an equation "with constant coefficients" like the first equation.

- Dec 24th 2009, 03:25 PM #4

- Joined
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 79

- Dec 24th 2009, 04:02 PM #5

- Dec 24th 2009, 04:08 PM #6

- Joined
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 79

- Dec 26th 2009, 04:11 AM #7

- Joined
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 18,446
- Thanks
- 2529

You are now saying, since "X= Y", that you must prove that R+ YS= 0, which is the same as Y= -R/S, satisfies the equation .

That makes sense now, but is wrong! If you replace Y by the**constant**function -R/S in that equation, and DY are both 0 since Y is a constant and the equation reduces to SY= -R= 0 which is not generally true.

Perhaps you meant "Show that Y= R+ XS, where X is the independent variable, satisfies ."

Now, Dy= D(R+ XS)= S and so the equation becomes 0+ R(S)+ (R+XS)(S) which is still not 0.

I still have no idea what you are really asking.

- Dec 30th 2009, 02:22 AM #8