When faced with something like , my first instinct has usually been to panic, and then to try trig (or hyperbolic) substitutions more or less at random. But is there a better way?
There are six such integrals altogether:
It sort of looks like there’s a pattern… but then there isn’t. How do we go about spotting what’s going on?
Sketch the integrand
I’m going to leave the and integrals for later and focus on the ones that have a square root on the denominator.
The square roots are extremely useful: they tell you where things are defined.
For example: when the integrand is , this is only defined when , so . What functions do we know that have a range like that? That’s right, the sines and cosines - so these two must correspond to the arcsine and arccosine functions. Which way round? Think about the gradients: and , so arccosine has a negative gradient; it must correspond to the negative integrand. You can make a similar argument for arcsine.
How about the others? When the integrand is , that’s clearly defined for all values of - arsinh fits the bill there.
We can also use Osborn’s Law, which says that ’if you have a trigonometric identity involving squares, replacing with and with will give you a corresponding hyperbolic identity. In this case, this means ’flipping the signs on the in the arcsine integral - it works!
Meanwhile, is only defined for - and is the function that fits the bill there.
The tangents
Lastly, we can note that gives an output between and , which suggests that its derivative must be - rather than , which is defined everywhere.
Again applying Osborn’s Law, we can see that that has to be arctangent.
There are other, less exciting ways to tackle these, obviously. But as a quick-and-dirty check of what’s going on, I find asking “what could the domain be?” saves a bit of substitution and makes one look like a ninja.