Integrate 1/x = ln(x) vs ln(kx)

  • #1
4
0
If [itex]k[/itex] is a constant, I know
[itex]\frac{d}{dx} \ln(x) = \frac{1}{x}[/itex]
[itex]\frac{d}{dx} \ln(kx) = \frac{k}{kx} = \frac{1}{x}[/itex]

However, what about [itex]\int\frac{1}{x}[/itex].
I've been taught to use [itex]\int\frac{1}{x} = \ln(x)[/itex],
but wouldn't [itex]\int\frac{1}{x} = \ln(kx)[/itex] work as well.
And if this is true, there are an infinite number of integrals!?!?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
4
0
Oh god, I just figured it out, right after posting this. I swear I was confounded for hours before this.
[itex]ln(kx)[/itex] works as well.
[itex]ln(kx) = ln(x) + ln(k)[/itex] and the [itex]ln(k)[/itex] would cancel out in any definite integrals.
But that would still mean there are an infinite number of indefinite integrals, which is a bit strange but perhaps possible.
 
  • #3
Mentallic
Homework Helper
3,798
94
Well, yes!

ln(kx) = ln(k)+ln(x)

and since k is just some constant, then ln(k) is also a constant. Remember that when you take the integral, you have to add +c at the end to denote that you can add any constant to the result and still have a correct solution.

So

[tex]\int\frac{1}{x}dx=\ln(kx)+c = \ln(x)+\ln(k)+c[/tex]

for any constant c, but since c is any constant, then we can merge [itex]\ln(k)+c[/itex] into a new constant, say, c2 which is the exact same result as if we left it as ln(x)+c to begin with.
 

Related Threads on Integrate 1/x = ln(x) vs ln(kx)

Replies
7
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
992
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
26K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
9K
Top