Integral of \( \displaystyle \left(2 x + 1\right)^{2} e^{\left(2 x + 1\right)^{3}} \)
Problem 4.172 · medium
Find \( \displaystyle \int \left(2 x + 1\right)^{2} e^{\left(2 x + 1\right)^{3}} \, dx \). (Omit the constant of integration.)
- \[ \int \left(2 x + 1\right)^{2} e^{\left(2 x + 1\right)^{3}}\, dx \]integralStart with the integral of the given function.✓ Proved
- \[ = \int \left(2 x + 1\right)^{2} e^{2 x^{3} + 3 x^{2} + 3 x + 1}\, dx \]algebraExpand the exponent.Not checked
- \[ = \frac{\int 3 \left(2 x + 1\right)^{2} e^{\left(2 x + 1\right)^{3}}\, dx}{3} \]rewriteThis is not a good way to proceed. Let's use the chain rule in reverse.Not checked
- \[ = \int \left(2 x + 1\right)^{2} e^{\left(2 x + 1\right)^{3}}\, dx \]rewrite algebraNo change needed, let's identify the derivative of the exponent. Express the integrand in a form suitable for substitution.✓ Proved
- \[ = \int \frac{3 \left(2 x^{2} + \frac{4 x}{3} + \frac{2}{3}\right) e^{\left(2 x + 1\right)^{3}}}{2 \left(2 x + 1\right)^{2} \left(3 x^{2} + 2 x + 1\right)}\, dx \]algebraActually, let's just differentiate the exponent.Not checked
- \[ = \int \left(2 x + 1\right)^{2} e^{\left(2 x + 1\right)^{3}}\, dx \]rewrite algebra algebraThe derivative of (2*x + 1)**3 is 3 * (2*x + 1)**2 * 2 = 6 * (2*x + 1)**2. Rewrite the integrand to include the derivative of the exponent. Group the terms.Not checked
- \[ = \frac{e^{\left(2 x + 1\right)^{3}}}{6} \]antiderivativeThe integral is the reciprocal of the constant factor times the exponential part.✓ Proved
Answer \( \frac{e^{\left(2 x + 1\right)^{3}}}{6} + C \)
Lines: 7 proved, 4 not checked. The answer was also checked a second way, without looking at the solution. A reviewer's objection to the explanation stands; see the receipt.
The full receipt
| Line | Status | Checked by | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | line 1 is the problem as stated |
| 2 | Not checked | — | simplify timed out; no point in the sample was defined on both lines |
| 3 | Not checked | — | simplify timed out; no point in the sample was defined on both lines |
| 4 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 5 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 6 | Not checked | — | simplify timed out; no point in the sample was defined on both lines undefined where 2*x + 1 = 0 undefined where 3*x**2 + 2*x + 1 = 0 |
| 7 | Not checked | — | simplify timed out; no point in the sample was defined on both lines undefined where 2*x + 1 = 0 undefined where 3*x**2 + 2*x + 1 = 0 |
| 8 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 9 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 10 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| answer | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | final line against the stated answer: simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| answer, a second way | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | SymPy differentiated the stated antiderivative back to the integrand |
Reviewers
gpt-oss:20b: fail (error) — Several steps apply more than one rule at once and use incorrect labels. For example, step 3 rewrites the integrand in a convoluted way that mixes algebraic manipulation with a rewrite, step 5 introduces a 1/3 factor without a clear rule, and step 7 claims a derivative while labeling it as a rewrite. These multi‑rule steps violate the contract and mislabel the operations performed.qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (error) — Steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are incoherent or mathematically invalid manipulations (e.g., Step 3 introduces a nonsensical fraction, Step 6 is algebraically incorrect). The solution fails to follow the 'one rule per step' constraint and presents a confusing, non-linear path that does not logically lead to the answer.
Every verdict on record (4)
qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (error) 2026-09-29 — Steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are incoherent or mathematically invalid manipulations (e.g., Step 3 introduces a nonsensical fraction, Step 6 is algebraically incorrect). The solution fails to follow the 'one rule per step' constraint and presents a confusing, non-linear path that does not logically lead to the answer.gpt-oss:20b: fail (error) 2026-09-29 — Several steps apply more than one rule at once and use incorrect labels. For example, step 3 rewrites the integrand in a convoluted way that mixes algebraic manipulation with a rewrite, step 5 introduces a 1/3 factor without a clear rule, and step 7 claims a derivative while labeling it as a rewrite. These multi‑rule steps violate the contract and mislabel the operations performed.qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (error) 2026-09-29 — Steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are logically incoherent or algebraically invalid manipulations that do not follow the 'one rule per step' constraint or basic algebraic equality. Specifically, Step 3 introduces a nonsensical fraction, and Step 6 contains a complex, incorrect algebraic transformation. The solution fails to demonstrate a valid derivation path.gpt-oss:20b: fail (error) 2026-09-29 — Step 2 expands (2*x+1)**3 incorrectly (it should be 8*x**3+12*x**2+6*x+1). The solution also applies multiple transformations in single steps, violating the one‑rule‑per‑step rule.
Proved: SymPy reduced the difference between the two sides to zero. Checked independently: a separate
method, named above, confirmed it. Checked numerically: the two sides agree at every sampled point, which is evidence,
not proof. Reviewed: a model or a person read it; that is all a sentence can have. Solution by
gemma4:26b, checked 2026-09-29 with SymPy 1.14.0.