Ooh, are you sure of that? I'd be reluctant to declare that without a lot more work on it. (I haven't spent any time on it, so you may well be right.)You are not going to be able to solve it analytically. You will need to use numerical methods.
I'm not absolutely sure, but I did play around with it some. The answer is definitely NOT exactly pi/3 (unless I really screwed up), so that makes me more confident that it is non-analytic.Ooh, are you sure of that? I'd be reluctant to declare that without a lot more work on it. (I haven't spent any time on it, so you may well be right.)
I would ask the TS: If this is homework. what topics have you been studying lately? For instance, if you've just been taught the law of cosines, it might be prudent to apply that here. I'm not saying this problem has anything to do with that law, just making the point that you may have recently been given the tools you need to solve this.
In a math class, I definitely understand expecting the failure to notice multiple solutions not being accepted.The answer does flip flop from just under an integral factor times pi to just over, getting to within 1% of pi by x=20.
My math teacher would have given a zero to anyone not noticing there was more than one solution.
Hi again,That's actually a special case that someone (myself included) should have spotted quite some time ago. What happens if you drive the left hand side to zero identically? Just wasn't thinking along those lines when I first saw the problem and then got funneled down a particular approach once I had concluded that it was non-analytic.
by Luke James
by Luke James
by Robert Keim
by Gary Elinoff