>forget to write "+ c" after indefinite integral

>partial credit

If your Prof gives partial credit, you are in a brainlet class.

>>8868927
None

Kys low IQ retard

>>8868928
If you think this, it's actually you who have never been in a serious class.

>>8868927
How the fuck do you forget to write a shitty c at the end?

File: owen.jpg (40KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x598px

not adding c shows you don't understand and are just manipulating symbols

level up, brainlet

>>8868927
don't forget and you won't need to know the answer to that.

>>8868935
>Getting credit for a bridge that collapses or a circuit that won't work

That's not how it works in the real world, anon.

>>8868973
Exams are not a model of real life.

>>8868973
That's not the point of an exam you autist

>>8868981
>>8868991
That's exactly how it was presented to me first day in college.

>when you're designing a nuclear plant, you can't afford to make mistakes on signs like some people do. There is no bad grade, there is dead people.

Stop making mistakes. Your points in an exam should evaluate how far and fast you can think, not how many mistakes you made.

>>8869015
I knew you were an engineer. Explains why you think math is about solving integrals really fast.

>>8869026
It's not, that's the point.

The faster you can do basic things, the more time you can spend on doing actual thinking.

I knew you were retarded.

>>8868927
There are situations when the +C is very important (for example, solving an ODE with an initial condition), but i've always thought it to be very pedantic to insist on it for questions that just ask you to evaluate an indefinite integral. If I were grading a question like that, I probably wouldn't have taken off more than 10% of the value of the problem.

>>8868973
>not being in a computer science career
thats how it works

>>8868927
>major in pure math
>never add + C

I just say it can be proven for C = 0 without loss of generality.

I think you need to differentiate between functions and function families
Cant say if manipulating the body of function is a good way of doing it though

>>8868927
The speed of light is not a trivial variable. Integrals are part of a spectrum.

>>8868927
Since c lies in the set of reals, forgetting to put it means that your answer has a null measure over the set of solutions, so it is pretty normal to give it a null score.

Although you could take the answer differently , and compute the Levenshtein similarity between the normalized form of your answer and the closest expression of the correct answer.

File: 1493419410864.gif (157KB, 1004x525px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1004x525px

>>8869171
this /thread

>>8869015
>you will kill people by providing a function which answers the question uniquely to within a constant difference, rather than the general form of such functions, as your answer
You're just in full-on brainlet mode, defending the autistic minutia you've drilled into your head in lieu of ingenuity as "equally valid in substance." The "uh, ackhshually, without +c it's wrong" stuff is just pure pedantry unless the course is proof based in the first place. Yeah, I know omitting it contravenes the meaning of the equals sign. But the question is really "find an antiderivative" and not "prove all functions which when differentiated give g have form f+c for constant c"
It's just a silly, stupid way to knock off points and weed out underperformers, who nonetheless do seem to have more trouble with it.

>>8869481
>But the question is really "find an antiderivative" and not "prove all functions which when differentiated give g have form f+c for constant c"

Nobody said that.

In fact, the fact that OP lost marks on his exam shows it's most likely the second case.

You missed a great opportunity to stfu and kill yourself.

You are wrong because you didn't give the indefinite integral. You gave some expression which you obtained using the method of integration. If you add +c to that expression you'd get the indefinite integral. Without, you just got some expression.

File: Sem título.png (161KB, 822x1102px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 822x1102px

>It seems that I can't create a thread just about my doubt... so I'm using this one

Can anyone help me?

I'm trying to plot a graph (pic related)...

I was told the proper function for the graph is f(x)=A*sin(t)+B*cos(t); A and B being any given value, but GeoGebra does not recognize it that way...

Does anyone know the proper funtion?

>>8869605
anyone? please....

>>8869015
So you believe that getting one question wrong should be an automatic fail, yes?

>>8869605
What you wanna get looks more like a sinoid multiplied by something like 1/t

>>8869015
sounds like you went to a shit uni m8
>tfw top 10 nuke program and only 1 professor didn't give partial credit
his exams sucked, because they were all 12 questions, no partial credit, so if you miss two, you're already at a B-

>>8869640
To give some context, it is supposed to be the answer to a harmonic/vibratory system with a logarithmic decrease

>>8868927
>constant of integration
why do they care about this shit? it's implied.

>>8869605
You wrote sen, instead of sin.
To me it looks like dampened oscillation, just google the formula.

>>8869651
I'm brazilian, sin = sen...

>dampened oscillation

but you saved my day

>>8869651
It was simply f(x) = e^(-x)*cos(2*pi*x)

>>8869646
at least we don't make retarded algebra or calculus mistakes and go fast.

ENSfag btw.