I think there is a mistake on Wikipedia about the integral of csch

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers around the integral of the hyperbolic cosecant function, csch(x), and identifies a potential error in the Wikipedia entry regarding its integral. The two expressions presented, ln | (cosh(x) - 1) / sinh(x) | and ln | sinh(x) / (cosh(x) + 1) |, are shown to be equivalent through derivation, despite appearing different. The user confirms the validity of the latter expression by differentiating it, demonstrating that it correctly yields csch(x), thus validating it as an integral.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of hyperbolic functions, specifically csch(x) and coth(x).
  • Familiarity with integral calculus and differentiation techniques.
  • Knowledge of logarithmic properties and their applications in calculus.
  • Basic grasp of the fundamental theorem of calculus.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of hyperbolic functions, focusing on their integrals and derivatives.
  • Learn advanced integration techniques, including substitution and integration by parts.
  • Explore the relationship between different forms of integrals and their derivatives.
  • Review the fundamental theorem of calculus in depth to understand its implications for integrals and derivatives.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and anyone interested in the properties and applications of hyperbolic functions and their integrals.

swampwiz
Messages
567
Reaction score
83
I am looking at the formulae for the integral of csch( x ) at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_integrals_of_hyperbolic_functions

and it seems that there is a mistake, specially the solution of (presume a is 1 here for simplicity)

ln | [ ( cosh( x ) - 1 ] / sinh( x ) ]

while there is also

ln | sinh( x ) / [ ( cosh( x ) + 1 ] |

the latter of which I get. The issue is that the solution to this latter one results in the former, only with terms swapped around the division operator.

Here is my derivation for them:

csch( x ) = csch2( x ) / [ csch2( x ) ]1/2

= csch2( x ) / [ coth2( x ) - 1 ]1/2

u = coth( x )

du = - csch2( x )

csch( x ) dx = - ( u2 - 1 )( - 1/2 )

∫ - ( u2 - 1 )( - 1/2 ) = - ln | u + ( u2 - 1 )1/2 | + C

= - ln | coth( x ) + [ coth2( x ) - 1 ]1/2 | + C

= - ln | coth( x ) + [ { csch2( x ) } ]1/2 | + C = - ln | coth( x ) + csch( x ) | + C

= - ln | [ cosh( x ) / sinh( x ) ] + [ 1 / sinh( x ) ] | + C

= - ln | [ cosh( x ) + 1 ] / sinh( x ) | + C

= ln | sinh( x ) / [ cosh( x ) + 1 ] | + C

So I get one the solutions, but not the other, which as I had said, seems to have the terms swapped around the division operator.

I presume that it is proper to consider the square root of something to be +.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The square root of a positive real number is defined to be the positive number whose square is that positive real number only, as a function can only have one value. So the square root of csc2(x) would be the absolute value of csc(x), or |csc(x)|. As such, your first equation is false: the hyperbolic cosecant of ln(1/2) is -4/3, but the fraction on the right side of your equation gives us only 4/3.
In order to verify that an expression is an integral of another expression, we only need to differentiate it, as there are many ways to express the same quantity, and our derivation may not match the author's derivation, even though the resulting quantities may be the same up to a constant of integration.
If we differentiate ln | [ ( cosh( x ) - 1 ] / sinh( x ) ], we get csch(x), so this is a valid integral, up to a constant of integration. Whether we can find a series of integration techniques that leads us to that particular expression is a secondary issue. Sometimes, for example, but probably not in this case, the integral is merely an educated guess, whose derivative checks out, and thus must be equal to the integral up to a constant of integration, by the fundamental theorem of calculus.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K