Integrating linearly

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I came across this question and just want to make sure my understanding is correct.



I need to find the general solution of:



$$
fracdxdt = a(1 - x)
$$



In this case, I'm finding the how $x$ changes with respect to $t$ so I'm integrating with respect to $t$. Does that mean the answer is $at - xat + C$?



Thanks :)










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 2




    You cannot integrate over $t$ if you have $x$ in the integral, which depends on $t$ in a yet unknown way. Separate the variables, it's the first elementary procedure you must learn to solve differential equations. Once you have $x$ on the left and $t$ on the right, you can proceed.
    – orion
    Aug 21 at 9:27










  • If $x(t) = t^2$, for example, then $int x, dt$ is clearly not $tx$.
    – anomaly
    Aug 21 at 19:57














up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I came across this question and just want to make sure my understanding is correct.



I need to find the general solution of:



$$
fracdxdt = a(1 - x)
$$



In this case, I'm finding the how $x$ changes with respect to $t$ so I'm integrating with respect to $t$. Does that mean the answer is $at - xat + C$?



Thanks :)










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 2




    You cannot integrate over $t$ if you have $x$ in the integral, which depends on $t$ in a yet unknown way. Separate the variables, it's the first elementary procedure you must learn to solve differential equations. Once you have $x$ on the left and $t$ on the right, you can proceed.
    – orion
    Aug 21 at 9:27










  • If $x(t) = t^2$, for example, then $int x, dt$ is clearly not $tx$.
    – anomaly
    Aug 21 at 19:57












up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











I came across this question and just want to make sure my understanding is correct.



I need to find the general solution of:



$$
fracdxdt = a(1 - x)
$$



In this case, I'm finding the how $x$ changes with respect to $t$ so I'm integrating with respect to $t$. Does that mean the answer is $at - xat + C$?



Thanks :)










share|cite|improve this question















I came across this question and just want to make sure my understanding is correct.



I need to find the general solution of:



$$
fracdxdt = a(1 - x)
$$



In this case, I'm finding the how $x$ changes with respect to $t$ so I'm integrating with respect to $t$. Does that mean the answer is $at - xat + C$?



Thanks :)







calculus integration






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 21 at 15:47









CulDeVu

15726




15726










asked Aug 21 at 9:23









Hews

515




515







  • 2




    You cannot integrate over $t$ if you have $x$ in the integral, which depends on $t$ in a yet unknown way. Separate the variables, it's the first elementary procedure you must learn to solve differential equations. Once you have $x$ on the left and $t$ on the right, you can proceed.
    – orion
    Aug 21 at 9:27










  • If $x(t) = t^2$, for example, then $int x, dt$ is clearly not $tx$.
    – anomaly
    Aug 21 at 19:57












  • 2




    You cannot integrate over $t$ if you have $x$ in the integral, which depends on $t$ in a yet unknown way. Separate the variables, it's the first elementary procedure you must learn to solve differential equations. Once you have $x$ on the left and $t$ on the right, you can proceed.
    – orion
    Aug 21 at 9:27










  • If $x(t) = t^2$, for example, then $int x, dt$ is clearly not $tx$.
    – anomaly
    Aug 21 at 19:57







2




2




You cannot integrate over $t$ if you have $x$ in the integral, which depends on $t$ in a yet unknown way. Separate the variables, it's the first elementary procedure you must learn to solve differential equations. Once you have $x$ on the left and $t$ on the right, you can proceed.
– orion
Aug 21 at 9:27




You cannot integrate over $t$ if you have $x$ in the integral, which depends on $t$ in a yet unknown way. Separate the variables, it's the first elementary procedure you must learn to solve differential equations. Once you have $x$ on the left and $t$ on the right, you can proceed.
– orion
Aug 21 at 9:27












If $x(t) = t^2$, for example, then $int x, dt$ is clearly not $tx$.
– anomaly
Aug 21 at 19:57




If $x(t) = t^2$, for example, then $int x, dt$ is clearly not $tx$.
– anomaly
Aug 21 at 19:57










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
8
down vote













You can't say that, simply because the function $x$ has a dependence in $t$ !






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    7
    down vote













    If you are given, for $x=x(t)$
    $$fracdxdt = a(1-x)$$



    Then, one can re-arrange (by abuse of notation), giving
    beginalign
    fracdx1-x &= a, dt \
    implies int left(frac11-xright)dx &= a int dt
    endalign
    The right hand side is straightforward for you, the left requires some knowledge of standard integrals.



    Does this help?






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • Awesome! Thanks for your help, does this lead to the answer "-ln(1-x) = at + C"?
      – Hews
      Aug 21 at 9:40










    • Yes. You probably want to turn it around and express $x$ in terms of $t$, and possibly rename the constant $e^-C$ to something else, as in this form has clearer meaning in the final function compared to just $C$.
      – orion
      Aug 21 at 9:45










    • @orion not possibly, but necessarily. Even if we consider complex values of $C$, there is a value $e^-C$ can’t reach, namely 0, but the corresponding solution, the constant function $x=1$, is very much a valid solution of the original equation.
      – Roman Odaisky
      Aug 21 at 15:33










    • @Hews Yes that is exactly right, but as other posters point out, you possible would prefer to rearrange into $x= ldots$
      – Kevin
      Aug 22 at 13:41










    • So to express x in terms of t, does it end as x = e^(at)e(-C) - 1?. Thanks for your help everyone!
      – Hews
      Aug 22 at 23:25

















    up vote
    3
    down vote













    You must write



    $$fracdx1-x=a dt$$






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      If you write it as $dx = a(1-x)dt$ then it would be correct to integrate $x$ with respect to $t$. The trouble is, to perform the integration correctly, you would need to know what the dependence of $x$ on $t$ is, which is what you're trying to find out in the first place. To see what the problem with $int xdt =xt+C$ is, consider any function, e.g. $x=t$. If we substitute $t$ in for $x$ before integrating, we get $int tdt =frac t^22+C$. But if we use $int xdt =xt+C$ and substitute $t$ in for $x$ afterwards, we get $int xdt =t^2+C$, which is off by a factor of 2. Or if $x = sin(t)$, then we would have $int sin(t)dt=tsin(t)+C$ instead of $int sin(t)dt = cos(t)+C$. If we had that $int f(t)dt =tf(t)+C$, that would make the whole concept of an integral rather trivial; the integral of any function would just be that function times the independent variable. The identity $int xdt=xt+C$ works only if $x$ doesn't depend on $t$. Remember, an integral can be interpreted as the area under a curve. If $x$ is a constant, then we just have a rectangle with width $t$ and height $x$, so the area is $xt$. But if $x$ is varying with $t$, then we can't just take the value of $x$ at the end of the interval; clearly the area is going to depend on what $x$ is doing in between.



      Note that if you get familiar with basic differential forms, you should get to a point where you recognize that when the derivative is proportional to the function value, you have an exponential function. In this case, the differential equation is modified by a constant term. So if you take the test solution $x = c_1e^c_2t+c_3$, solve for the derivative in terms of $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$, and then plug that into the differential equation, then you can solve for $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$. Note that one degree of freedom will remain, since this is a first-order equation and no initial condition is given.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        Your Answer




        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        );
        );
        , "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: false,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













         

        draft saved


        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2889665%2fintegrating-linearly%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest






























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        8
        down vote













        You can't say that, simply because the function $x$ has a dependence in $t$ !






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          up vote
          8
          down vote













          You can't say that, simply because the function $x$ has a dependence in $t$ !






          share|cite|improve this answer






















            up vote
            8
            down vote










            up vote
            8
            down vote









            You can't say that, simply because the function $x$ has a dependence in $t$ !






            share|cite|improve this answer












            You can't say that, simply because the function $x$ has a dependence in $t$ !







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Aug 21 at 9:26









            tmaths

            1,334113




            1,334113




















                up vote
                7
                down vote













                If you are given, for $x=x(t)$
                $$fracdxdt = a(1-x)$$



                Then, one can re-arrange (by abuse of notation), giving
                beginalign
                fracdx1-x &= a, dt \
                implies int left(frac11-xright)dx &= a int dt
                endalign
                The right hand side is straightforward for you, the left requires some knowledge of standard integrals.



                Does this help?






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                • Awesome! Thanks for your help, does this lead to the answer "-ln(1-x) = at + C"?
                  – Hews
                  Aug 21 at 9:40










                • Yes. You probably want to turn it around and express $x$ in terms of $t$, and possibly rename the constant $e^-C$ to something else, as in this form has clearer meaning in the final function compared to just $C$.
                  – orion
                  Aug 21 at 9:45










                • @orion not possibly, but necessarily. Even if we consider complex values of $C$, there is a value $e^-C$ can’t reach, namely 0, but the corresponding solution, the constant function $x=1$, is very much a valid solution of the original equation.
                  – Roman Odaisky
                  Aug 21 at 15:33










                • @Hews Yes that is exactly right, but as other posters point out, you possible would prefer to rearrange into $x= ldots$
                  – Kevin
                  Aug 22 at 13:41










                • So to express x in terms of t, does it end as x = e^(at)e(-C) - 1?. Thanks for your help everyone!
                  – Hews
                  Aug 22 at 23:25














                up vote
                7
                down vote













                If you are given, for $x=x(t)$
                $$fracdxdt = a(1-x)$$



                Then, one can re-arrange (by abuse of notation), giving
                beginalign
                fracdx1-x &= a, dt \
                implies int left(frac11-xright)dx &= a int dt
                endalign
                The right hand side is straightforward for you, the left requires some knowledge of standard integrals.



                Does this help?






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                • Awesome! Thanks for your help, does this lead to the answer "-ln(1-x) = at + C"?
                  – Hews
                  Aug 21 at 9:40










                • Yes. You probably want to turn it around and express $x$ in terms of $t$, and possibly rename the constant $e^-C$ to something else, as in this form has clearer meaning in the final function compared to just $C$.
                  – orion
                  Aug 21 at 9:45










                • @orion not possibly, but necessarily. Even if we consider complex values of $C$, there is a value $e^-C$ can’t reach, namely 0, but the corresponding solution, the constant function $x=1$, is very much a valid solution of the original equation.
                  – Roman Odaisky
                  Aug 21 at 15:33










                • @Hews Yes that is exactly right, but as other posters point out, you possible would prefer to rearrange into $x= ldots$
                  – Kevin
                  Aug 22 at 13:41










                • So to express x in terms of t, does it end as x = e^(at)e(-C) - 1?. Thanks for your help everyone!
                  – Hews
                  Aug 22 at 23:25












                up vote
                7
                down vote










                up vote
                7
                down vote









                If you are given, for $x=x(t)$
                $$fracdxdt = a(1-x)$$



                Then, one can re-arrange (by abuse of notation), giving
                beginalign
                fracdx1-x &= a, dt \
                implies int left(frac11-xright)dx &= a int dt
                endalign
                The right hand side is straightforward for you, the left requires some knowledge of standard integrals.



                Does this help?






                share|cite|improve this answer














                If you are given, for $x=x(t)$
                $$fracdxdt = a(1-x)$$



                Then, one can re-arrange (by abuse of notation), giving
                beginalign
                fracdx1-x &= a, dt \
                implies int left(frac11-xright)dx &= a int dt
                endalign
                The right hand side is straightforward for you, the left requires some knowledge of standard integrals.



                Does this help?







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Aug 21 at 12:01









                polfosol

                5,36731843




                5,36731843










                answered Aug 21 at 9:28









                Kevin

                5,158722




                5,158722











                • Awesome! Thanks for your help, does this lead to the answer "-ln(1-x) = at + C"?
                  – Hews
                  Aug 21 at 9:40










                • Yes. You probably want to turn it around and express $x$ in terms of $t$, and possibly rename the constant $e^-C$ to something else, as in this form has clearer meaning in the final function compared to just $C$.
                  – orion
                  Aug 21 at 9:45










                • @orion not possibly, but necessarily. Even if we consider complex values of $C$, there is a value $e^-C$ can’t reach, namely 0, but the corresponding solution, the constant function $x=1$, is very much a valid solution of the original equation.
                  – Roman Odaisky
                  Aug 21 at 15:33










                • @Hews Yes that is exactly right, but as other posters point out, you possible would prefer to rearrange into $x= ldots$
                  – Kevin
                  Aug 22 at 13:41










                • So to express x in terms of t, does it end as x = e^(at)e(-C) - 1?. Thanks for your help everyone!
                  – Hews
                  Aug 22 at 23:25
















                • Awesome! Thanks for your help, does this lead to the answer "-ln(1-x) = at + C"?
                  – Hews
                  Aug 21 at 9:40










                • Yes. You probably want to turn it around and express $x$ in terms of $t$, and possibly rename the constant $e^-C$ to something else, as in this form has clearer meaning in the final function compared to just $C$.
                  – orion
                  Aug 21 at 9:45










                • @orion not possibly, but necessarily. Even if we consider complex values of $C$, there is a value $e^-C$ can’t reach, namely 0, but the corresponding solution, the constant function $x=1$, is very much a valid solution of the original equation.
                  – Roman Odaisky
                  Aug 21 at 15:33










                • @Hews Yes that is exactly right, but as other posters point out, you possible would prefer to rearrange into $x= ldots$
                  – Kevin
                  Aug 22 at 13:41










                • So to express x in terms of t, does it end as x = e^(at)e(-C) - 1?. Thanks for your help everyone!
                  – Hews
                  Aug 22 at 23:25















                Awesome! Thanks for your help, does this lead to the answer "-ln(1-x) = at + C"?
                – Hews
                Aug 21 at 9:40




                Awesome! Thanks for your help, does this lead to the answer "-ln(1-x) = at + C"?
                – Hews
                Aug 21 at 9:40












                Yes. You probably want to turn it around and express $x$ in terms of $t$, and possibly rename the constant $e^-C$ to something else, as in this form has clearer meaning in the final function compared to just $C$.
                – orion
                Aug 21 at 9:45




                Yes. You probably want to turn it around and express $x$ in terms of $t$, and possibly rename the constant $e^-C$ to something else, as in this form has clearer meaning in the final function compared to just $C$.
                – orion
                Aug 21 at 9:45












                @orion not possibly, but necessarily. Even if we consider complex values of $C$, there is a value $e^-C$ can’t reach, namely 0, but the corresponding solution, the constant function $x=1$, is very much a valid solution of the original equation.
                – Roman Odaisky
                Aug 21 at 15:33




                @orion not possibly, but necessarily. Even if we consider complex values of $C$, there is a value $e^-C$ can’t reach, namely 0, but the corresponding solution, the constant function $x=1$, is very much a valid solution of the original equation.
                – Roman Odaisky
                Aug 21 at 15:33












                @Hews Yes that is exactly right, but as other posters point out, you possible would prefer to rearrange into $x= ldots$
                – Kevin
                Aug 22 at 13:41




                @Hews Yes that is exactly right, but as other posters point out, you possible would prefer to rearrange into $x= ldots$
                – Kevin
                Aug 22 at 13:41












                So to express x in terms of t, does it end as x = e^(at)e(-C) - 1?. Thanks for your help everyone!
                – Hews
                Aug 22 at 23:25




                So to express x in terms of t, does it end as x = e^(at)e(-C) - 1?. Thanks for your help everyone!
                – Hews
                Aug 22 at 23:25










                up vote
                3
                down vote













                You must write



                $$fracdx1-x=a dt$$






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote













                  You must write



                  $$fracdx1-x=a dt$$






                  share|cite|improve this answer






















                    up vote
                    3
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    3
                    down vote









                    You must write



                    $$fracdx1-x=a dt$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    You must write



                    $$fracdx1-x=a dt$$







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Aug 21 at 9:28









                    Dr. Sonnhard Graubner

                    69k32761




                    69k32761




















                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        If you write it as $dx = a(1-x)dt$ then it would be correct to integrate $x$ with respect to $t$. The trouble is, to perform the integration correctly, you would need to know what the dependence of $x$ on $t$ is, which is what you're trying to find out in the first place. To see what the problem with $int xdt =xt+C$ is, consider any function, e.g. $x=t$. If we substitute $t$ in for $x$ before integrating, we get $int tdt =frac t^22+C$. But if we use $int xdt =xt+C$ and substitute $t$ in for $x$ afterwards, we get $int xdt =t^2+C$, which is off by a factor of 2. Or if $x = sin(t)$, then we would have $int sin(t)dt=tsin(t)+C$ instead of $int sin(t)dt = cos(t)+C$. If we had that $int f(t)dt =tf(t)+C$, that would make the whole concept of an integral rather trivial; the integral of any function would just be that function times the independent variable. The identity $int xdt=xt+C$ works only if $x$ doesn't depend on $t$. Remember, an integral can be interpreted as the area under a curve. If $x$ is a constant, then we just have a rectangle with width $t$ and height $x$, so the area is $xt$. But if $x$ is varying with $t$, then we can't just take the value of $x$ at the end of the interval; clearly the area is going to depend on what $x$ is doing in between.



                        Note that if you get familiar with basic differential forms, you should get to a point where you recognize that when the derivative is proportional to the function value, you have an exponential function. In this case, the differential equation is modified by a constant term. So if you take the test solution $x = c_1e^c_2t+c_3$, solve for the derivative in terms of $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$, and then plug that into the differential equation, then you can solve for $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$. Note that one degree of freedom will remain, since this is a first-order equation and no initial condition is given.






                        share|cite|improve this answer


























                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote













                          If you write it as $dx = a(1-x)dt$ then it would be correct to integrate $x$ with respect to $t$. The trouble is, to perform the integration correctly, you would need to know what the dependence of $x$ on $t$ is, which is what you're trying to find out in the first place. To see what the problem with $int xdt =xt+C$ is, consider any function, e.g. $x=t$. If we substitute $t$ in for $x$ before integrating, we get $int tdt =frac t^22+C$. But if we use $int xdt =xt+C$ and substitute $t$ in for $x$ afterwards, we get $int xdt =t^2+C$, which is off by a factor of 2. Or if $x = sin(t)$, then we would have $int sin(t)dt=tsin(t)+C$ instead of $int sin(t)dt = cos(t)+C$. If we had that $int f(t)dt =tf(t)+C$, that would make the whole concept of an integral rather trivial; the integral of any function would just be that function times the independent variable. The identity $int xdt=xt+C$ works only if $x$ doesn't depend on $t$. Remember, an integral can be interpreted as the area under a curve. If $x$ is a constant, then we just have a rectangle with width $t$ and height $x$, so the area is $xt$. But if $x$ is varying with $t$, then we can't just take the value of $x$ at the end of the interval; clearly the area is going to depend on what $x$ is doing in between.



                          Note that if you get familiar with basic differential forms, you should get to a point where you recognize that when the derivative is proportional to the function value, you have an exponential function. In this case, the differential equation is modified by a constant term. So if you take the test solution $x = c_1e^c_2t+c_3$, solve for the derivative in terms of $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$, and then plug that into the differential equation, then you can solve for $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$. Note that one degree of freedom will remain, since this is a first-order equation and no initial condition is given.






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote









                            If you write it as $dx = a(1-x)dt$ then it would be correct to integrate $x$ with respect to $t$. The trouble is, to perform the integration correctly, you would need to know what the dependence of $x$ on $t$ is, which is what you're trying to find out in the first place. To see what the problem with $int xdt =xt+C$ is, consider any function, e.g. $x=t$. If we substitute $t$ in for $x$ before integrating, we get $int tdt =frac t^22+C$. But if we use $int xdt =xt+C$ and substitute $t$ in for $x$ afterwards, we get $int xdt =t^2+C$, which is off by a factor of 2. Or if $x = sin(t)$, then we would have $int sin(t)dt=tsin(t)+C$ instead of $int sin(t)dt = cos(t)+C$. If we had that $int f(t)dt =tf(t)+C$, that would make the whole concept of an integral rather trivial; the integral of any function would just be that function times the independent variable. The identity $int xdt=xt+C$ works only if $x$ doesn't depend on $t$. Remember, an integral can be interpreted as the area under a curve. If $x$ is a constant, then we just have a rectangle with width $t$ and height $x$, so the area is $xt$. But if $x$ is varying with $t$, then we can't just take the value of $x$ at the end of the interval; clearly the area is going to depend on what $x$ is doing in between.



                            Note that if you get familiar with basic differential forms, you should get to a point where you recognize that when the derivative is proportional to the function value, you have an exponential function. In this case, the differential equation is modified by a constant term. So if you take the test solution $x = c_1e^c_2t+c_3$, solve for the derivative in terms of $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$, and then plug that into the differential equation, then you can solve for $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$. Note that one degree of freedom will remain, since this is a first-order equation and no initial condition is given.






                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            If you write it as $dx = a(1-x)dt$ then it would be correct to integrate $x$ with respect to $t$. The trouble is, to perform the integration correctly, you would need to know what the dependence of $x$ on $t$ is, which is what you're trying to find out in the first place. To see what the problem with $int xdt =xt+C$ is, consider any function, e.g. $x=t$. If we substitute $t$ in for $x$ before integrating, we get $int tdt =frac t^22+C$. But if we use $int xdt =xt+C$ and substitute $t$ in for $x$ afterwards, we get $int xdt =t^2+C$, which is off by a factor of 2. Or if $x = sin(t)$, then we would have $int sin(t)dt=tsin(t)+C$ instead of $int sin(t)dt = cos(t)+C$. If we had that $int f(t)dt =tf(t)+C$, that would make the whole concept of an integral rather trivial; the integral of any function would just be that function times the independent variable. The identity $int xdt=xt+C$ works only if $x$ doesn't depend on $t$. Remember, an integral can be interpreted as the area under a curve. If $x$ is a constant, then we just have a rectangle with width $t$ and height $x$, so the area is $xt$. But if $x$ is varying with $t$, then we can't just take the value of $x$ at the end of the interval; clearly the area is going to depend on what $x$ is doing in between.



                            Note that if you get familiar with basic differential forms, you should get to a point where you recognize that when the derivative is proportional to the function value, you have an exponential function. In this case, the differential equation is modified by a constant term. So if you take the test solution $x = c_1e^c_2t+c_3$, solve for the derivative in terms of $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$, and then plug that into the differential equation, then you can solve for $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$. Note that one degree of freedom will remain, since this is a first-order equation and no initial condition is given.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Aug 21 at 15:25

























                            answered Aug 21 at 15:20









                            Acccumulation

                            5,8442616




                            5,8442616



























                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded















































                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2889665%2fintegrating-linearly%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest













































































                                Popular posts from this blog

                                How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                                Bahrain

                                Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay