Integrating 1/x: From Undefined to Natural Logs

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DiracPool
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrating Natural
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integral of 1/x and its relationship to the natural logarithm, exploring the reasoning behind this connection. Participants examine various definitions, properties, and methods of deriving the integral, including the fundamental theorem of calculus and limit definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that while the integral of 1/x seems undefined due to the power rule leading to division by zero, it is actually related to the natural logarithm.
  • Another participant suggests using the limit definition of a derivative to show that the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x, thereby linking the integral of 1/x to ln(x).
  • A different approach is proposed involving the limit of an integral as n approaches zero, which leads to a formulation involving natural logarithms.
  • Some participants discuss the necessity of finding alternative methods to evaluate the integral of 1/x, emphasizing that it is not undefined but requires a different approach.
  • One participant mentions that newer calculus texts define ln(x) as the integral from 1 to t of dt/t, which allows for the derivation of properties of the logarithm.
  • Another participant presents two equivalent definitions of the natural logarithm and provides a proof connecting them through calculus.
  • It is noted that defining ln(x) as an integral allows for its properties to be established, including its continuity and one-to-one nature.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various methods and definitions related to the integral of 1/x and the natural logarithm, but there is no consensus on a single approach or resolution of the underlying questions.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve assumptions about continuity and the behavior of functions near zero, which may not be fully resolved within the thread.

DiracPool
Messages
1,247
Reaction score
514
The integral of 1/x is ln(x). Where does that come from? That always puzzled me. We can continue to take derivatives through x^0 and into the negative integers, and just use the plain old power rule to get the answers. We can do the same for the integral of x all the way from negative exponents through positive exponents with the exception of x^-1. If we try to take the integral here, we get x^0/0, which is 1/0, and is undefined. OK, I get that, but how do we get a natural logarithm out of this undefined expression?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First use the limit definition of a derivative on ln(x) to show that dln(x)/dx=1/x then use the fundamental theorem of calculus to show that the antiderivative of 1/x is ln(x).
 
Hi DiracPool! :smile:
DiracPool said:
If we try to take the integral here, we get x^0/0, which is 1/0, and is undefined. OK, I get that, but how do we get a natural logarithm out of this undefined expression?

Let's find \lim_{n\rightarrow 0}\int_1^{e^a} x^{n-1} dx

that's limn->0 (ena - 1)/n

= limn->0 (na + n2a2/2! + …)/n

= a = [ln(ea) - ln(1)] :wink:
 
bp_psy said:
First use the limit definition of a derivative on ln(x) to show that dln(x)/dx=1/x then use the fundamental theorem of calculus to show that the antiderivative of 1/x is ln(x).

Agreed. Using the rule for other exponents here gives us an undefined integral. Does this mean the integral of 1/x is undefined? No, it just means we have to find another way to evaluate the integral (FTC, as bp_psy pointed out,) as there's obviously an expression for the area under the curve 1/x, so long as both bounds are on the same side of the y-axis.

Just for a few other examples where applying a rule to find a defined expression results in an undefined answer:

Quotient rule on \lim\limits_{x\to0}\left(\dfrac xx\right)

L'Hôpital twice on \lim\limits_{x\to0}\left(\dfrac{x\cdot\sin \left(x\right)}{x^2}\right)

Both of these result in meaningless answers, but both limits are clearly defined. So we have to find another method to solve them.
 
Great, thanks for the insight everyone.
 
Many newer Calculus texts handle this by noting, first, that the rule "\int x^n dx= 1/(n+1) x^{n+1}+ C" cannot be used for n= -1 because it would involve dividing by 0 and then defining ln(x)= \int_1^t dt/t
From that definition one can derive all of the properties of ln(x), including the facts that ln(ab)= ln(a)+ ln(b), that ln(a^b)= bln(a), that ln(x) is invertible, and that its inverse is e^x where is the unique number satisfying 1= ln(e).
 
The natural logarithm function \ln{x} has two equivalent definitions.
1) \ln{x} is the function such that \exp(\ln{x})=\ln(e^x)=x, and
2) \ln{x}=\int_1^x \frac{dt}{t}.

Proof. From definition 1 to 2:
The derivative of \exp(\ln{x}) is \exp(\ln{x})\frac{d}{dx}\ln{x}. But \exp(\ln{x})=x, so x\frac{d}{dx}\ln{x}=\frac{d}{dx}x=1\implies\frac{d}{dx}\ln{x}= \frac{1}{x}. By the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, \frac{d}{dx}\int_1^x \frac{dt}{t}=\frac{1}{x}. Since f'(x)=g'(x)\implies f(x)=g(x)+C for some C\in\mathbb{R}, we have \ln{x}=\int_1^x \frac{dt}{t} (as it turns out, C=0).

From definition 2 to 1:
Use the substitution t=e^u,\,\,dt=e^udu to get the integral \ln{x}=\int_{g(1)}^{g(x)} \frac{e^udu}{e^u} where g(e^x)=e^{g(x)}=x. From this we can surmise that g(1)=0. The integral simplifies to \ln{x}=\int_0^{g(x)}du=\left. u\right|_0^{g(x)}=g(x). So \ln{x} satisfies \exp(\ln{x})=\ln(e^x)=x.
 
Last edited:
Since you post that, it is worth noting:
If we define ln(x)= \int_1^x dt/t it is easy to show that, since 1/t is continuous for all t except 0 ln(x) is defined for all positive x. Of course, 1/x, the derivative of ln(x) (by the fundamental theorem of Calculus) is positive for all positive x, ln(x) is an increasing function which means that ln(x) is a "one-to-one" function mapping the set of all positive numbers to the set or all real numbers. That tells us that it has an inverse and we can define "exp(x)" to be that inverse.

Now, the crucial point is this: if y= exp(x) then, since exp(x) is the inverse function to ln(x), x= ln(y). If x is not 0, that is equivalent to 1= (1/x)ln(y)= ln(y^{1/x}). Going back to the exponential form, exp(1)= y^{1/x} so that y= exp(x)= (exp(1))^x. That is, that inverse function really is just a number (and we can define e= exp(1)) to the x power.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
822
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K