Proving: $(\ln{x})^n$ Integral from 0 to 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter v0id19
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the integral of \((\ln{x})^n\) from 0 to 1, specifically showing that \(\int_{0}^{1}(\ln{x})^ndx=(-1)^n\cdot n!\) for positive integers \(n\). The problem involves concepts from calculus, particularly integration and limits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the use of induction to prove the statement, with initial attempts focusing on the base case of \(n=1\) and then generalizing to \(n=k+1\). There are discussions about integration by parts and the limits involved as \(x\) approaches 0. Some participants express confusion about notation and the application of the induction hypothesis.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing various approaches and suggestions. Some participants question the validity of using induction, while others propose alternative methods involving differentiation under the integral sign. There is no explicit consensus, but several productive lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of handling the limit as \(x\) approaches 0, particularly regarding the behavior of \(\ln{x}\). There is also mention of differing preferences for proof techniques among physicists and mathematicians.

v0id19
Messages
47
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If n is a positive integer, prove that [tex]\int_{0}^{1}(\ln{x})^ndx=(-1)^n\cdot n![/tex]

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I'm assuming that since ln(0) is undef and [tex]\mathop{\lim}\limits_{x \to 0^+}\ln{x}=- \infty[/tex] i need to rewrite the integral as [tex]\mathop{\lim}\limits_{t \to 0^+}\int_{t}^{1}(\ln{x})^ndx=(-1)^n\cdot n![/tex]. But I have no idea how to integrate that since n is a variable...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This looks like a job for induction. Can you show it's true for n=1? To do the induction step integrate by parts with u=(ln(x))^(n+1) and dv=dx.
 
so i proved n=1, and assumed it's true for n=k
now for n=k+1, I get:
[tex]\mathop{\lim}\limits_{t \to 0^+}\int_{t}^{1}[/tex]ln(x)(k+1)dx which i need to prove equals [tex](-1)^k^+^1\cdot (k+1)![/tex] Now i know that ln(x)k+1=ln(x)kln(x).

so if i integrate by parts using f=ln(x)k and g'=ln(x), i go around in circles...

am i missing something?
 
I told you what parts to use. To integrate f*dg=(ln(x))^(k+1)*dx take f=(ln(x))^(k+1), dg=dx. So g=x. What's g*df?
 
i'm not familiar with that notation for integration by parts, but if i understand you correctly g*df=[tex]\frac{\ln{x}^k \cdot (k+1)}{x} \cdot 1[/tex]
 
so then i get
ln(x)k+1*x-∫ln(x)k(k+1)dx
 
g=x. So I get x*(k+1)*ln(x)^k*(1/x) dx. Do you see how the x's cancel? I was trying to imitate your notation for integration by parts. Integral(f*dg)=f*g-Integral(g*df).
 
v0id19 said:
so then i get
ln(x)k+1*x-∫ln(x)k(k+1)dx

Ok then. Put in your induction hypothesis for the integral of ln(x)^k.
 
can i do that with the (k+1) inside the integral?
or do i do parts again, and set
f'=ln(x)^k f=(-1)kk!
g=k+1 g'=0

that gets me
ln(x)k+1*x-[((-1)kk!)(k+1)]+∫0dx
 
  • #10
Physicists don't like proofs by induction.

[tex]\int_{0}^{1}x^{p}dx = \frac{1}{p+1}[/tex]

Differentiate both sides n times w.r.t. the parameter p:

[tex]\int_{0}^{1}x^{p} \log^{n}(x)dx = (-1)^{n}\frac{n!}{(p+1)^{n+1}}[/tex]

Put p = 0 to get the desired result.
 
  • #11
(k+1) IS a CONSTANT.
 
  • #12
Dick said:
(k+1) IS a CONSTANT.

oh duh thanks
 
  • #13
so i have ln(x)k+1x-(k+1)(-1)kk!
which equals
ln(x)k+1x-(-1)k(k+1)!

so somehow ln(x)k+1x needs to get my (-1)k to (-1)k+1
 
  • #14
Count Iblis said:
Physicists don't like proofs by induction.

[tex]\int_{0}^{1}x^{p}dx = \frac{1}{p+1}[/tex]

Differentiate both sides n times w.r.t. the parameter p:

[tex]\int_{0}^{1}x^{p} \log^{n}(x)dx = (-1)^{n}\frac{n!}{(p+1)^{n+1}}[/tex]

Put p = 0 to get the desired result.

I'm a physicist, and I don't have any particular problems with induction. But sure, you can do it that way. Note the problem says 'prove that'. Physicists also HATE proofs.
 
  • #15
v0id19 said:
so i have ln(x)k+1x-(k+1)(-1)kk!
which equals
ln(x)k+1x-(-1)k(k+1)!

so somehow ln(x)k+1x needs to get my (-1)k to (-1)k+1

(-1)*(-1)^k=(-1)^(k+1), doesn't it? The term x*ln(x)^(k+1) vanishes at x=1. And it's limit is 0 as x->0. You can use l'Hopital and another induction argument to show that, if you don't already know it.
 
  • #16
yeah if i just show the l'hopital for the t-->0 that should be sufficient.

THANKS! :D :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K