Integration by parts, why is this allowed?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of integration by parts, specifically addressing the legality of setting \( v = x \) when integrating \( \int \ln{x} \, dx \). Participants explore the roles of \( u \) and \( dv \) in this context, examining how these choices affect the integration process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the legality of setting \( v = x \) since \( x \) is already present in the argument of \( \ln{x} \).
  • Another participant clarifies the definitions of \( u \) and \( dv \), stating \( u = \ln(x) \) and \( dv = dx \), leading to \( v = x \).
  • A participant expresses understanding that \( dv \) must be part of the original integral while \( v \) does not need to be, indicating a distinction in their roles.
  • Further clarification is provided that integration by parts allows for the selection of \( dv \) to derive \( v \), even if \( v \) does not appear in the original integral.
  • Another participant suggests viewing the integral as \( \int (1 \times \ln(x)) \, dx \) to reinforce the choice of \( dv \) as \( dx \) and \( u \) as \( \ln(x) \).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the mechanics of integration by parts, particularly regarding the selection of \( u \) and \( dv \). However, there is some uncertainty expressed about the implications of these choices, particularly in relation to the presence of \( v \) in the original integral.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the need to understand the roles of \( u \), \( v \), and \( dv \) in the integration process, indicating potential limitations in their explanations or assumptions about the integral's structure.

find_the_fun
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
I'm following this example where it is asked to integrate [math]\int \ln{x} dx[/math] using integration by parts. I don't understand how it's legal to set v=x since the only x in the equation is the argument of ln and that's already accounted for by u.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: integration by parts, why is this allowed?

We are actually setting:

$$u=\ln(x)\,\therefore\,du=\frac{1}{x}\,dx$$

$$dv=dx\,\therefore\,v=x$$
 
Re: integration by parts, why is this allowed?

MarkFL said:
We are actually setting:

$$u=\ln(x)\,\therefore\,du=\frac{1}{x}\,dx$$

$$dv=dx\,\therefore\,v=x$$

Ok I think I get it. So with integration by parts you choose dv before you calculate v? In other words dv has to be part of the original equation but v does not?
 
Re: integration by parts, why is this allowed?

find_the_fun said:
Ok I think I get it. So with integration by parts you choose dv before you calculate v? In other words dv has to be part of the original equation but v does not?

Correct...integration by parts states:

$$\int u\,dv=uv-\int v\,du$$

So, you want to choose a $u$ and a $dv$, and then from these compute $du$ and $v$.
 
Any time you use "integration by parts",
\int udv= uv- \int v du, there is NO "v" in the original integral. You get it by your choice of "dv".

Here, the choice is dv= dx, u= ln(x).
 
If it helps you can think of

$$\int \ln(x) dx = \int \left(1 \times \ln(x) \right)dx$$

Then you can set $$\frac{dv}{dx} = 1$$ and $$u = \ln(x)$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K