You actually don't know how much I appreciate this video, i've had this question looming over my head for like 3 years! This was actually astonishing to see! Thanks!
The best way to do partial fraction, is not to do partial fraction! ... I wish, But it seems impossible! I'm always struggling with Partial fractions! Thank you Teacher
For me, the math is more intuitive this way, but it gets to the same place. Looking just at the (x + 2)^2 part, we could express its partial fraction as (Bx + C) / (x + 2)^2. Then we could algebrize that numerator into "(B(x + 2) + (C - 2B))", and since we're dealing with as-yet undetermined coefficients, we could replace "(C - 2B)" with "D". So that leaves us with a numerator of "B(x + 2) + D", and when we divide by "(x + 2)^2", we're left with "B/(x + 2) + D/(x + 2)^2".
@@leif1075 You might have one that coincidentally turns out to be zero, but in general, if you are working with a quadratic, you have to put a linear term on top of it, because fractions using a quadratic denominator have two degrees of freedom. You can either set it up as (B*x + C)/(x + 2)^2, or B/(x + 2)^2 + C/(x + 2). Either way, you'll get a partial fraction decomposition that is valid. Usually, the form of B/(x + 2)^2 + C/(x + 2) is preferable, for an application where you'd use this concept. I recommend putting terms you can get by Heaviside coverup first. So if I were given (2*x + 1)/((x + 1)*(x + 2)^2), I'd assign A to be the coefficient over (x + 1), and B to be the coefficient over (x + 2)^2. Both of these, can be found with Heaviside coverup. You get A = -1, and B = 3. There is a shortcut that can work for getting C. (2*x + 1)/((x + 1)*(x + 2)^2) = -1/(x + 1) + 3/(x + 2)^2 + C/(x + 2) Multiply through by just one instance of (x + 2): (2*x + 1)/((x + 1)*(x + 2)) = -(x + 2)/(x + 1) - 3/(x + 2) + C Let x go to infinity by taking the limit. Terms with a higher x-degree in the denominator than the numerator become zero, terms with equal degrees of x in both become a finite number. 0 = -1 - 0 + C And we can directly see that C = +1.
@@carultch indont known what heaviside cover up is nut also what you say doesn't make sense..you already have one linear term.and one quadratic term so you still.dont need the B term..see what I mean??
@@leif1075 Heaviside cover-up is a shortcut for partial fractions. The idea is that you can more directly find the coefficient over the linear terms, by plugging in the input that makes that particular factor equal zero. Then, cover up that term in the original fraction, and evaluate the rest at the same input value. If you try only having one constant coefficient over either a quadratic denominator, or a repeated linear denominator without the second term, you'll end up with an over-constrained system of equations, that is either redundant or contradictory. Try it for: (2*x + 1)/((x + 1)*(x + 2)^2) Assume it is equal to: A/(x + 1) + B/(x + 2)^2 Cross-multiply: (2*x + 1) = A*(x + 2)^2 + B*(x + 1) Expand: 2*x + 1 = A*x^2 + 4*A*x + 4*A + B*x + B This constructs the equations: A = 0 4*A + B = 2 B = 1 And you'll see a contradiction, that B needs to both equal 1 and 2, which it can't do. This is why we need a third term, of C/(x + 2), so we have a third unknown for a 3-equation system.
This dude is the Wizard, the Gandalf of Mathematics. Thanks for making math easy and fun to learn. I can solve differential equations now, all thanks to you.
I disagree that that's the reason, it's definitely a good way to show it, but the reason is because of what partial fractions are, essentially they are undoing finding the common denominator, and when you have a repeated term, you could have had every power of the repeated term up to the power of the term and the denominator would have looked the same, so you assume they could all be there, unless you show a numerator is zero. My biggest beef with partial fractions is when I first learned how to do them I didn't learn why I was doing them, just that it was how you solved a certain type of integral, and therefore I didn't really learn how to do it properly, now that I understand that you're just reversing getting a common denominator it all makes sense, and I could probably figure it out from just the idea if I really wanted to, rather than having to remember the process (although it would be a little faster if I could remember it).
"essentially they are undoing finding the common denominator, and when you have a repeated term, you could have had every power of the repeated term up to the power of the term and the denominator would have looked the same, so you assume they could all be there, unless you show a numerator is zero." okay but why is this the case?
@@bprpcalculusbasics I understood all of the video except the rule you used; the degree on the top must be 1 less than the degree on the bottom. Why is this the case?
@@dVPulse that requires some proof which can't be written down in the comments without making its too tiresome to read. But yeah, there IS a proof and I'll post a link whenever i find it.
@@user-cc4lj3ge5u easy but important for any beginner. nobody jumps to the 10 floor initially.. One needs to progress slowly and steadily, NCERT is good to start with anyway
This helped me so much becuse of this i will be able to pass my precalc class helping me raise it by over TWO percent!!! My parents are finally satisfied.
1.618 The golden ratio, also known as the golden number, golden proportion, or divine proportion, is the ratio between two numbers that is approximately equal to 1.618. It is represented by the Greek letter phi (Φ)
In general, for every x, y > 0 we have ( i ) 0 < xy < 1 ⇒ arctan x + arctan y = arctan( ( x + y )/( 1 - xy ) ) ( ii ) xy = 1 ⇒ arctan x + arctan y = π/2 ( iii ) 1 < xy ⇒ arctan x + arctan y = π - arctan( ( x + y )/( xy - 1 ) )
@@田村博志-z8y idk man having _fraction_ with logarithms doesn't seem simpler than 2 separate ones and arctg layer is still there, so it's cubersome either way
Good thing this answer got revealed during our algebra lecture when we were proving that every polynomial fraction can be expressed as the sum of the polynomial simple fractions.
Another way of seeing it is,that Bx + C/(x+2)^2 = Bx + 2B/(x+2)^2 + C - 2B/(x+2)^2 = B(x + 2/(x+2)^2 + C - 2B/(x+2)^2 = B/(x+2) + D/(x+2)^2 where D = C -2B, i.e is a just a constant. It is also worth remembering that the conditions here are entirely because the problem is ultimately a system of equations and so the variables need to equal the number of equations.
blackpenredpen fans for the win! also a question, if you include complex numbers, would partial fractions be any different other than the irreducible being reducible?
Yes indeed. If you include complex numbers, then all polynomial denominators up to the quartic, would technically be reducible. Quintics and beyond, have no closed-form solution for the roots, in elementary functions. It usually won't help you very much to do this. It's a lot easier to set up the algebraic system to solve for unknown coefficients, than to detour to the complex numbers. Even though Heaviside coverup works for linear factors of complex roots as well.
Hi, I comment here for the first time. By Euclidean algorithm we have ( x + 2 )^2 = ( x + 3 )( x + 1 ) + 1, 1 = ( x + 2 )^2 - ( x + 3 )( x + 1 ), 1/( ( x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 ) = 1/( x + 1 ) - ( x + 3 )/( x + 2 )^2. We also have ( x + 3 )/( x + 2 )^2 = ( x + 2 + 1 )/( x + 2 )^2 = 1/( x + 2 ) + 1/( x + 2 )^2. Hence we obtain 1/( ( x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 ) = 1/( x + 1 ) - 1/( x + 2 ) - 1/( x + 2 )^2.
By the similar way we have 1 = ( x + 2 )^2 - ( x + 3 )( x + 1 ), 2x + 1 = ( 2x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 - ( 2x + 1 )( x + 3 )( x + 1 ) = ( 2( x + 1 ) - 1 )( x + 2 )^2 - ( 2( x + 2 )^2 - ( x + 5 ) )( x + 1 ) = ( x + 5 )( x + 1 ) - ( x + 2 )^2, ( 2x + 1 )/( ( x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 ) = ( x + 5 )/( x + 2 )^2 - 1/( x + 1 ). And we also have ( x + 5 )/( x + 2 )^2 = 1/( x + 2 ) + 3/( x + 2 )^2. Hence we obatin ( 2x + 1 )/( ( x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 ) = 1/( x + 2 ) + 3/( x + 2 )^2 - 1/( x + 1 ).
IV. If (a * x ^ 2 + bx + c) ^ k , for a ne 0and * b ^ 2 - 4ac < 0 , is a factor in the denominator for k > 1 and (a * x ^ 2 + bx + c) ^ (k + 1) not a factor, then the corresponding sum of partial fractions to this factor is: (A_{1}*x + B_{1})/(a * x ^ 2 + bx + c) + (A_{2}*x + B_{2})/((a * x ^ 2 + bx + c) ^ 2) +***+ A k x+B k (ax^ 2 +bx+c)^ k , where A_{1} ,...,A k and B_{1} ,...,B k are constants that we have to determine. I've seen a lot of videos but can't find this thing except my text book.
The way I rationalize repeating factors is that you need the possibility of getting different values for A, B, C, etc, as a repeating factor is but a representation of a second degree equation. However, we only have one value for all the roots of such equations (delta is 0), hence you need to have a way to generate the other factors. Since the degree of repetition determinates the number of equal roots to the equation, you can use every exponential combination, and they will alow you to make MMC since the equation is divisible by all the degrees from 1 to its actual degree. TL; DR: It's not like I can't write B / (x-a)^n and call it a day. It's just that B won't be a single number in this case, so instead of writing it that way and then doing partial fraction stuff to it again, we skip directly to writing all the different factors with different powers of the same (x-a) bit as the divisors.
It can be done without the repeated factor of (x+2). Just write A/(x+1) with (Bx+c)/(x+2)^2. You get a system of three equations in 3 unknowns which is easily solvable.
I like it: gold on black golden ratio. Maybe a coincidence, these last weeks I am working on statistical techniques to be applied on Logistics, Demography, Approximation, Politics (solutions for Gerrymandering) and so on... golden ratio has a fundamental role in these techniques, as an alternative number for Nature and Human objects which dimensions have unknown statistical distribution.
If the degree on top, is equal to, or greater than, the degree on bottom, then you can simplify the rational expression, into a separate polynomial added to a fraction. Either by adding zero in a fancy way, to form a term you can cancel, or by using polynomial division. The polynomial terms on their own, once extracted from the fraction, can be handled with the power rule. As for why it is one less, rather than two less, the reason is that you'll get an indeterminate system of equations when attempting to solve for coefficients, if you don't have a big enough polynomial on top of any given term. You could "get lucky" and end up with a highest degree term of the numerator with a coefficient of zero, but in general, you need at least a polynomial on top of a degree one less, than the degree of the polynomial on bottom.
As an example, given: x^3/[(x + 1)*(x + 2)] I can simplify this to: x - 3 + (7*x + 6)/[(x + 1)*(x + 2)] Once in this form, the x - 3 part, is all set for calculus applications. It's just the power rule to either differentiate or integrate it. All that remains for partial fractions is: (7*x + 6)/[(x + 1)*(x + 2)] This one is a proper fraction, with a linear term on top, and a factored quadratic on bottom. The simplified expression after partial fractions is complete, is: x - 3 - 1/(x + 1) + 8/(x + 2)
How to solve the constants: th-cam.com/video/WrGXIjXRSys/w-d-xo.html
just learnt this in school, but the teacher never bothered to actually explain. god bless ya, man
this, is HANDS DOWN, the BEST explanation on this entire website, maybe even in this entire universe
Thanks!!
Exactly !!!
the most captivating part is the way he switches between the 2 markers with one hand
This is great. I've done a lot of calculus and watched a lot of math videos, but don't know that I'd ever had it explained this way before.
Thank you.
@@bprpcalculusbasics Donyou think thisbis too unintuitive though and needlessly complicated? Hope you can respond when you can. Thanks for sharing.
The ending was the cherry on top
Finally this question is answered in an intuitive way:)) I’ve been wondering this for ages
You actually don't know how much I appreciate this video, i've had this question looming over my head for like 3 years! This was actually astonishing to see! Thanks!
Same to me, I just love this guy 😭
@@rodrigosilva893you made me watch this again, thanks 🫂
Glad to help! Thank you!!!
This is the best explanation I've seen for this. Great job.
Insane mind muscle coordination they way you just swap the blue and red pens absolutely insane... And the explanation absolutely crystal clear
The best way to do partial fraction, is not to do partial fraction! ... I wish, But it seems impossible!
I'm always struggling with Partial fractions!
Thank you Teacher
same😁
For me, the math is more intuitive this way, but it gets to the same place. Looking just at the (x + 2)^2 part, we could express its partial fraction as (Bx + C) / (x + 2)^2. Then we could algebrize that numerator into "(B(x + 2) + (C - 2B))", and since we're dealing with as-yet undetermined coefficients, we could replace "(C - 2B)" with "D". So that leaves us with a numerator of "B(x + 2) + D", and when we divide by "(x + 2)^2", we're left with "B/(x + 2) + D/(x + 2)^2".
That's so much simpler! The substitution thing he did in the video is too unintuitive and overcomplicates the problem in my opinion.
But WAIT can't you do the partial.fractuon decomposition WITHOUT the B term..I think you can so why doesn't he show this??
@@leif1075 You might have one that coincidentally turns out to be zero, but in general, if you are working with a quadratic, you have to put a linear term on top of it, because fractions using a quadratic denominator have two degrees of freedom.
You can either set it up as (B*x + C)/(x + 2)^2, or B/(x + 2)^2 + C/(x + 2). Either way, you'll get a partial fraction decomposition that is valid. Usually, the form of B/(x + 2)^2 + C/(x + 2) is preferable, for an application where you'd use this concept.
I recommend putting terms you can get by Heaviside coverup first. So if I were given (2*x + 1)/((x + 1)*(x + 2)^2), I'd assign A to be the coefficient over (x + 1), and B to be the coefficient over (x + 2)^2. Both of these, can be found with Heaviside coverup. You get A = -1, and B = 3.
There is a shortcut that can work for getting C.
(2*x + 1)/((x + 1)*(x + 2)^2) = -1/(x + 1) + 3/(x + 2)^2 + C/(x + 2)
Multiply through by just one instance of (x + 2):
(2*x + 1)/((x + 1)*(x + 2)) = -(x + 2)/(x + 1) - 3/(x + 2) + C
Let x go to infinity by taking the limit. Terms with a higher x-degree in the denominator than the numerator become zero, terms with equal degrees of x in both become a finite number.
0 = -1 - 0 + C
And we can directly see that C = +1.
@@carultch indont known what heaviside cover up is nut also what you say doesn't make sense..you already have one linear term.and one quadratic term so you still.dont need the B term..see what I mean??
@@leif1075 Heaviside cover-up is a shortcut for partial fractions. The idea is that you can more directly find the coefficient over the linear terms, by plugging in the input that makes that particular factor equal zero. Then, cover up that term in the original fraction, and evaluate the rest at the same input value.
If you try only having one constant coefficient over either a quadratic denominator, or a repeated linear denominator without the second term, you'll end up with an over-constrained system of equations, that is either redundant or contradictory. Try it for:
(2*x + 1)/((x + 1)*(x + 2)^2)
Assume it is equal to:
A/(x + 1) + B/(x + 2)^2
Cross-multiply:
(2*x + 1) = A*(x + 2)^2 + B*(x + 1)
Expand:
2*x + 1 = A*x^2 + 4*A*x + 4*A + B*x + B
This constructs the equations:
A = 0
4*A + B = 2
B = 1
And you'll see a contradiction, that B needs to both equal 1 and 2, which it can't do. This is why we need a third term, of C/(x + 2), so we have a third unknown for a 3-equation system.
I wish my university math teachers were like this guy!
This dude is the Wizard, the Gandalf of Mathematics. Thanks for making math easy and fun to learn. I can solve differential equations now, all thanks to you.
I disagree that that's the reason, it's definitely a good way to show it, but the reason is because of what partial fractions are, essentially they are undoing finding the common denominator, and when you have a repeated term, you could have had every power of the repeated term up to the power of the term and the denominator would have looked the same, so you assume they could all be there, unless you show a numerator is zero. My biggest beef with partial fractions is when I first learned how to do them I didn't learn why I was doing them, just that it was how you solved a certain type of integral, and therefore I didn't really learn how to do it properly, now that I understand that you're just reversing getting a common denominator it all makes sense, and I could probably figure it out from just the idea if I really wanted to, rather than having to remember the process (although it would be a little faster if I could remember it).
"essentially they are undoing finding the common denominator, and when you have a repeated term, you could have had every power of the repeated term up to the power of the term and the denominator would have looked the same, so you assume they could all be there, unless you show a numerator is zero." okay but why is this the case?
@@bprpcalculusbasics they’ve been real quiet after this.😂
@@bprpcalculusbasics I understood all of the video except the rule you used; the degree on the top must be 1 less than the degree on the bottom. Why is this the case?
@@dVPulse that requires some proof which can't be written down in the comments without making its too tiresome to read. But yeah, there IS a proof and I'll post a link whenever i find it.
@@chessematics where?pls post it
This was so helpful, listing all the possibilities and literally answering all the questions just as I was asking myself!
One of Greatest Mathematics Teacher🤗😊
I needed a quick reminder before exams thanks
Sup
I subscribed you because you save my life
You are very good teacher u break it down just as some teachers can not do
this was the best someone have ever explained me. It was to the point and not too overwhelming. By the way, that poke-ball mic is on point!!
That was awesome. Thank you! Helping my college teen!
you explain math so comprehensively thank you
just exactly what i was looking for.
Thank you so much. This was extremely helpful as I was very confused about the setup of integral functions like this.
it is a really good way to understand it. You forget what we need to prove at 8:40, HHHHA~!
But I got it, thank you so much.
Another nice video...❤ I revise My concepts watching your videos...
Glad to hear that
Thank you so much dear Teacher 💖
exactly the video I wanted ! 😂 #NCERT,Class 12
The easiest maths book you could ever do 😂
@@user-cc4lj3ge5u easy but important for any beginner. nobody jumps to the 10 floor initially.. One needs to progress slowly and steadily, NCERT is good to start with anyway
This helped me so much becuse of this i will be able to pass my precalc class helping me raise it by over TWO percent!!! My parents are finally satisfied.
You're a Savior T_T
I'm doing Electrical& Electronics, pray for me
very useful to solve some kind of integrals and differential equations
He is a genius and quit funny 😂😂.
I really enjoyed the class, thank you ☺️
Gosh I FINALLY understood this after a year 😭😭 THANKS MANN
Great explanation! Just saved me big time thank you.
thank you very much my friend. Greeting from Greece!
Great video. I was most impressed by the slight of hand with the dry erase markers though
useful for inverse laplace transform !
This is incredibly helpful, thanks a lot man!
beautifully explained good sir
1.618 The golden ratio, also known as the golden number, golden proportion, or divine proportion, is the ratio between two numbers that is approximately equal to 1.618. It is represented by the Greek letter phi (Φ)
I have a problem for you.What are the angles at the intersection point of the functions (1/3)^x and 2^x.I found this problem really fun to do 😄
arctg(ln(3))+arctg(ln(2))?
does it simplify somehow or smth?
@@NoNameAtAll2
Setting a := arctan( ln 2 ), b := arctan( ln 3 ) we have
tan a = ln 2,
tan b = ln 3,
tan( a + b ) = ( tan a + tan b )/( 1 - ( tan a )( tan b ) )
= ( ln 2 + ln 3 )/( 1 - ( ln 2 )( ln 3 ) )
= ( ln 6 )/( 1 - ( ln 2 )( ln 3 ) ).
The calculator shows that
( ln 2 )( ln 3 ) = 0.7615000…
So tan( a + b ) > 0. Noting that
0 < a, b < π/2,
0 < a + b < π,
we have
a + b = arctan( ( ln 6 )/( 1 - ( ln 2 )( ln 3 ) ) ).
Consequently, we obtain
arctan( ln 2 ) + arctan( ln 3 ) = arctan( ( ln 6 )/( 1 - ( ln 2 )( ln 3 ) ) ).
In general, for every x, y > 0 we have
( i ) 0 < xy < 1 ⇒ arctan x + arctan y = arctan( ( x + y )/( 1 - xy ) )
( ii ) xy = 1 ⇒ arctan x + arctan y = π/2
( iii ) 1 < xy ⇒ arctan x + arctan y = π - arctan( ( x + y )/( xy - 1 ) )
@@田村博志-z8y idk man
having _fraction_ with logarithms doesn't seem simpler than 2 separate ones
and arctg layer is still there, so it's cubersome either way
@@NoNameAtAll2
Oh, sorry. I don't know what expression is better for some calculation.
U ARE A LIFE SAVER!!! THANKS
Good thing this answer got revealed during our algebra lecture when we were proving that every polynomial fraction can be expressed as the sum of the polynomial simple fractions.
Another way of seeing it is,that Bx + C/(x+2)^2 = Bx + 2B/(x+2)^2 + C - 2B/(x+2)^2 = B(x + 2/(x+2)^2 + C - 2B/(x+2)^2 = B/(x+2) + D/(x+2)^2 where D = C -2B, i.e is a just a constant.
It is also worth remembering that the conditions here are entirely because the problem is ultimately a system of equations and so the variables need to equal the number of equations.
you randomly worked hard to explain someone but i didnt understand wht u wrote
blackpenredpen fans for the win!
also a question, if you include complex numbers, would partial fractions be any different other than the irreducible being reducible?
Yes indeed. If you include complex numbers, then all polynomial denominators up to the quartic, would technically be reducible. Quintics and beyond, have no closed-form solution for the roots, in elementary functions.
It usually won't help you very much to do this. It's a lot easier to set up the algebraic system to solve for unknown coefficients, than to detour to the complex numbers. Even though Heaviside coverup works for linear factors of complex roots as well.
Hi, I comment here for the first time.
By Euclidean algorithm we have
( x + 2 )^2 = ( x + 3 )( x + 1 ) + 1,
1 = ( x + 2 )^2 - ( x + 3 )( x + 1 ),
1/( ( x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 ) = 1/( x + 1 ) - ( x + 3 )/( x + 2 )^2.
We also have
( x + 3 )/( x + 2 )^2 = ( x + 2 + 1 )/( x + 2 )^2
= 1/( x + 2 ) + 1/( x + 2 )^2.
Hence we obtain
1/( ( x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 ) = 1/( x + 1 ) - 1/( x + 2 ) - 1/( x + 2 )^2.
By the similar way we have
1 = ( x + 2 )^2 - ( x + 3 )( x + 1 ),
2x + 1 = ( 2x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 - ( 2x + 1 )( x + 3 )( x + 1 )
= ( 2( x + 1 ) - 1 )( x + 2 )^2 - ( 2( x + 2 )^2 - ( x + 5 ) )( x + 1 )
= ( x + 5 )( x + 1 ) - ( x + 2 )^2,
( 2x + 1 )/( ( x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 ) = ( x + 5 )/( x + 2 )^2 - 1/( x + 1 ).
And we also have
( x + 5 )/( x + 2 )^2 = 1/( x + 2 ) + 3/( x + 2 )^2.
Hence we obatin
( 2x + 1 )/( ( x + 1 )( x + 2 )^2 ) = 1/( x + 2 ) + 3/( x + 2 )^2 - 1/( x + 1 ).
thank you, this is an amazing explaination!
A big class. thanks.
Glad you liked it!
Useful for maths 2B integration.
I was looking at the Pokéball the whole video wondering why does he hold it allá the time, and then realized it was a microphone
thank you kind sir, taking calc 2 as a 4.5 week summer course and its rough
Yes, that is super hard. Best wishes to you! : )
Thank you so so much.This was very helpful
i finally understood thanks!!
Will repeating whatever confusing nonlinear partial fracctions thing be on the AP Calc BC exam? :)
Very helpful, thanks so much!!
before watching the video, ik i am going to understand it babe, lets gett itttt. midterm 3 tomorrow bout to ace it with only 6 hours of studying
Best of luck!!!
Very Useful thankyou bro !! I love your video
Thank you!
Just today I watched a video where partial fractions were used, insane timing.
Thanks a lot for this 'tutorial'😅. You could have chose your L1 but thanks for using the English language. I really appreciate it.
Very nice video tho but why we need the numerator has to be only one degree less than the denominator?
Bc if not, then we can do polynomial long division.
Best explanation ❤
awesome explanation
IV. If (a * x ^ 2 + bx + c) ^ k , for a ne 0and * b ^ 2 - 4ac < 0 , is a factor in the denominator for k > 1 and (a * x ^ 2 + bx + c) ^ (k + 1) not a factor, then the corresponding sum of
partial fractions to this factor is:
(A_{1}*x + B_{1})/(a * x ^ 2 + bx + c) + (A_{2}*x + B_{2})/((a * x ^ 2 + bx + c) ^ 2) +***+ A k x+B k (ax^ 2 +bx+c)^ k ,
where A_{1} ,...,A k and B_{1} ,...,B k are constants that we have to determine.
I've seen a lot of videos but can't find this thing except my text book.
I need a specified video for how to solve partial fractions, pls🙏
I love you so much omg man. thank you 😭
Thank you for answering my biggest WHY .. I asked my professor about it and he didn't give me a clear answer.
Thanks sir, I love your teaching
Explained Well
The way I rationalize repeating factors is that you need the possibility of getting different values for A, B, C, etc, as a repeating factor is but a representation of a second degree equation.
However, we only have one value for all the roots of such equations (delta is 0), hence you need to have a way to generate the other factors.
Since the degree of repetition determinates the number of equal roots to the equation, you can use every exponential combination, and they will alow you to make MMC since the equation is divisible by all the degrees from 1 to its actual degree.
TL; DR: It's not like I can't write B / (x-a)^n and call it a day. It's just that B won't be a single number in this case, so instead of writing it that way and then doing partial fraction stuff to it again, we skip directly to writing all the different factors with different powers of the same (x-a) bit as the divisors.
It can be done without the repeated factor of (x+2). Just write A/(x+1) with (Bx+c)/(x+2)^2. You get a system of three equations in 3 unknowns which is easily solvable.
For more tutorials 😂😂 you know la kho haha. Thanks
thank you sir, it helped a lot.
Thanks, super helpfull!!
Thank you so much!!
Thank you so much that gave me a huge help.
Awesome winderfuly explained .. sir i have a question that while solving partial fraction why we put denominator factro equal to zero
That's the best explanation of this question.
This is now more confusing than before I watched this video!!
This guy is just great!!
Tried to get the answer to this question, it was nowhere to be found. Then all of a sudden this appears on my home screen. Wow. Thanks
YT read your mind! Cheers : )
Boom, I was searching for long time
Wow so cool !
Tysm❤
I like the last few seconds 😂 hehe❤ thanks for the video❤
I literally started laughing at 5:00 , the way he easily explained it. So thankful😭
Can we just admire how well he switches the markers xD
Thanks I got it good.. best explanation
3:36 But why degree in the numerator must be one less than degrees in the denominator?
Because x^2+2 vis not factorable over the reals and so a linear factor is allowed to be a remainder
Thank you, this helped me a lot! ^_^@@mathisnotforthefaintofheart
sorry but this was so funny 🤣 @06:34
but kudos for the amazing explanation
Try to split as A(x+1) + B(x+1), and you’ll see why we need the 2nd denominator as (x+1)^2.
thank you, very helpful!
What if t is a second degree expression? If we follow the same process,we'll encounter sqrt in the denominator which will not be good to work with.
NOO WHERE ARE THE MORE TUTORILS 😭😭
I like it: gold on black golden ratio.
Maybe a coincidence, these last weeks I am working on statistical techniques to be applied on Logistics, Demography, Approximation, Politics (solutions for Gerrymandering) and so on... golden ratio has a fundamental role in these techniques, as an alternative number for Nature and Human objects which dimensions have unknown statistical distribution.
why does the degree on the top have to be one less than the degree on the bottom when setting up the partial fractions?
Bc if not, then we can do long division to break it down
If the degree on top, is equal to, or greater than, the degree on bottom, then you can simplify the rational expression, into a separate polynomial added to a fraction. Either by adding zero in a fancy way, to form a term you can cancel, or by using polynomial division. The polynomial terms on their own, once extracted from the fraction, can be handled with the power rule.
As for why it is one less, rather than two less, the reason is that you'll get an indeterminate system of equations when attempting to solve for coefficients, if you don't have a big enough polynomial on top of any given term. You could "get lucky" and end up with a highest degree term of the numerator with a coefficient of zero, but in general, you need at least a polynomial on top of a degree one less, than the degree of the polynomial on bottom.
As an example, given:
x^3/[(x + 1)*(x + 2)]
I can simplify this to:
x - 3 + (7*x + 6)/[(x + 1)*(x + 2)]
Once in this form, the x - 3 part, is all set for calculus applications. It's just the power rule to either differentiate or integrate it.
All that remains for partial fractions is:
(7*x + 6)/[(x + 1)*(x + 2)]
This one is a proper fraction, with a linear term on top, and a factored quadratic on bottom.
The simplified expression after partial fractions is complete, is:
x - 3 - 1/(x + 1) + 8/(x + 2)
u helped me soo much❤
6:40 for 4). why do we still use a constant for the x^2, x^3, x^4?
i love you man
Very helpful concept. i'd do you a favor- Say it like, "two toe real".
His the best thank you so much