Integration by Parts Contradiction

neo_
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Ok guys, this is my first post. Please go easy...:redface:

This question is from Morris Kline's Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach and unfortunately there aren't solutions for all questions (really annoying).

I'm not even sure if this counts as a contradiction but anyway:

Let us evaluate int.(1/x)dx by parts. If we let u=1/x and dv=1dx, we obtain int.(dx/x)=1 + int.(dx/x). Then 1=0. What is wrong?

I would really appreciate a simple explanation from any of you experienced brains out there! Thanks.
 
on Phys.org
Here's what I think. Let:
[tex]g(x) := \int f(x)dx \quad \mbox{and} \quad h(x):= \int f(x)dx[/tex]. Then, you do not have g(x) - h(x) = 0, you will have g(x) - h(x) = C, where C is some constant.
So here's the same, you can say that:
[tex]\int \frac{dx}{x} - \int \frac{dx}{x} = C[/tex], where C is some constant.
So it's not a contradiction...
Viet Dao,
 
I get you Viet Dao... I don't think I would not have thought that way at all on my own... not tonight anyway. Thanks.

Here's a thought I just had:
Could int.(dx/x) = C + int.(dx/x) , where C is some constant other than 1, be eventuated from Int. by Parts?
 
You can continue integrating by parts, something like:
[tex]\int \frac{dx}{x} = 1 + \int \frac{dx}{x} = 1 + \left( 1 + \int \frac{dx}{x} \right) = 1 + 1 + .. + 1 + \left( 1 + \int \frac{dx}{x} \right)[/tex].
So you'll have:
[tex]\Leftrightarrow \int \frac{dx}{x} - \int \frac{dx}{x} = 1 + 1 + 1 + ... + 1[/tex].
Viet Dao,
 
Gotcha, excellent explanation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K