Integration by Partial Fractions

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of a rational function using partial fractions, specifically the integral of 1/((x-1)(1-2x)). Participants are examining the steps involved in finding the antiderivative and addressing a potential algebraic error in the process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to integrate the function using partial fractions and expresses uncertainty about a possible sign mistake in their calculations. They detail their integration steps and seek clarification on where they might have gone wrong.
  • Some participants question the treatment of logarithmic expressions, particularly the inclusion of absolute values in the antiderivative, and discuss the equivalence of different logarithmic forms.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's reasoning, providing insights about the importance of absolute values in logarithmic functions. There is a productive exchange regarding the validity of different expressions for the antiderivative, with no explicit consensus reached on a singular approach.

Contextual Notes

The integral is part of a larger differential equation problem, which adds complexity to the discussion regarding the necessity of specific forms of the logarithmic solution.

kdinser
Messages
335
Reaction score
2
I'm making a small mistake somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

[tex]\int\frac{dx}{(x-1)(1-2x)}[/tex]

taking the partial fractions

[tex]1=A(1-2x)+B(x-1)[/tex]

[tex]A=-1, B=-2[/tex]

[tex]\int\frac{-1}{x-1} dx+\int\frac{-2}{1-2x}dx[/tex]

Integrating by substitution, this is what I'm getting

[tex]-ln(x-1)+ln(1-2x)+C[/tex]

The correct answer is

[tex]-ln(x-1)+ln(2x-1)+C[/tex]

I think I'm making some kind of algebraic sign mistake when taking the second integral, but I just can't find it. I'll go through my solution step by step here and if someone could point out the mistake I would appreciate it.

[tex]\int\frac{-2}{1-2x}dx[/tex]

[tex]-2\int\frac{dx}{(1-2x)}[/tex]

[tex]u=1-2x[/tex] [tex]\frac{du}{dx}=-2[/tex]

[tex]-2\int\frac{dx}{-2u}[/tex]

[tex]\int\frac{dx}{u}[/tex]

[tex]ln(u)+C[/tex]

[tex]ln(1-2x)+C[/tex]

Somewhere along the way, I'm missing the spot where I'm supposed to factor out a -1 from the denominator, but where?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your mistake is rather subtle, it is basically that you think the anti-derivative of 1/x is ln(x); the right expression is ln(|x|) (that is, an absolute value sign must be included)

To give an example:
Look at 1/(x-1).
On the face of it, we would conclude that the antiderivative is ln(x-1).

But, you could always write:
1/(x-1)=(-1)/(1-x) (Agreed?)
But if you integrate the right-hand side, you'll seemingly end up with ln(1-x)

As you can see, all this makes sense, only if you realize that the correct anti-derivative is ln(|x-1|)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the quick reply, that explains why it wasn't obvious.
 
One more thing.

Just so I can make sure I understand it. That means I would be free to use either solution?

The reason I ask is, this integral was part of a larger diff eq problem where I needed ln(2x-1) to verify the solution of a diff eq.

My TI-89 gives the solution ln(|2x-1|), I can't believe that I didn't notice the || signs the first time I looked at it . Is there a reason that ln|2x-1| is more correct then ln|1-2x|?
 
ln|2x-1| is identical in every way to ln|1-2x|, I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to use either expression.

It just so happens I made the exact same mistake a couple of days, and spent hours trying to figure out why Mathematica gave me an answer of ln|(x-1)/(x+1)| while I was getting ln|(1-x)/(1+x)|...
 
Is there a reason that ln|2x-1| is more correct then ln|1-2x|?

Absolutely NONE whatsoever, since we always have: |a|=|-a| for every choice of a.

So, as long as you keep the absolute value sign in there, you're free to use either expression (since they are equal)
 
Great, thanks guys.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
3K