Solving Integral Trouble: \int ln(2x+1)dx

  • Thread starter Thread starter laker88116
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the integral of ln(2x+1) using integration by parts. The initial approach involved setting u = ln(2x+1) and dv = dx, leading to a complex expression that required further integration by parts. However, a simpler method was suggested, involving splitting the fraction 2x/(2x+1) into 1 - 1/(2x+1), which simplifies the integral significantly. The importance of recognizing when to avoid unnecessary repetition in integration by parts was also highlighted. Ultimately, the poster was able to resolve their confusion with the guidance provided.
laker88116
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
\int ln(2x+1)dx

So far I know that I need to use integration by parts, I let u= ln(2x+1) and so du= \frac {dx}{2x+1}. Also, I said dv= dx and v=x.

So then plugging this into the equation for integration I get:

xln(2x+1) - \int \frac {2x}{2x+1}dx

Then I determine that I need to do integration by parts again on the latter half of the function. So, for \int \frac {2x}{2x+1}dx, I let u= 2x and so du= xdx. Also, I said dv= \frac {dx}{2x+1} and v= \frac {ln(2x+1)}{2}.

So then plugging this into the equation for integration I get:

\int \frac {2x}{2x+1}dx = xln(2x+1) - \int ln(2x+1)dx

Now, I have like terms so I say that:

\int ln(2x+1)dx = xln(2x+1) - [xln(2x+1) - \int ln(2x+1)dx].

I am not sure where I made an error here. Any help is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oi, so complicated >_<

You don't have to integrate by parts again. You can split the fraction like:

\frac{2x}{2x+1}=1-\frac{1}{2x+1}

But even simpler is first solving:

\int \ln x dx
then the integral should be a piece of cake. The straight way to Rome is not always the shortest, nor the easiest to follow.
 
\int ln(2x+1)dx = xln(2x+1) - \int \frac {2x}{2x+1}dx = xln(2x+1) - \int 1 - \frac {1}{2x+1} dx
 
Wow, how did I miss that, thanks so much.
 
Anyways, as to the actual method you implemented, your second integration was simply undoing the first integration by parts you tried. That's why you got a useless result at the end.
 
It's not productive to do the problem for the person asking for help. (especially when you do it wrong!) Fortunately, the poster had already figured it out from the hints!
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
747
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
105
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Back
Top