Solving Integral Trouble: \int ln(2x+1)dx

  • Thread starter Thread starter laker88116
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the integral of ln(2x+1) using integration by parts. The initial approach involved setting u = ln(2x+1) and dv = dx, leading to a complex expression that required further integration by parts. However, a simpler method was suggested, involving splitting the fraction 2x/(2x+1) into 1 - 1/(2x+1), which simplifies the integral significantly. The importance of recognizing when to avoid unnecessary repetition in integration by parts was also highlighted. Ultimately, the poster was able to resolve their confusion with the guidance provided.
laker88116
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
\int ln(2x+1)dx

So far I know that I need to use integration by parts, I let u= ln(2x+1) and so du= \frac {dx}{2x+1}. Also, I said dv= dx and v=x.

So then plugging this into the equation for integration I get:

xln(2x+1) - \int \frac {2x}{2x+1}dx

Then I determine that I need to do integration by parts again on the latter half of the function. So, for \int \frac {2x}{2x+1}dx, I let u= 2x and so du= xdx. Also, I said dv= \frac {dx}{2x+1} and v= \frac {ln(2x+1)}{2}.

So then plugging this into the equation for integration I get:

\int \frac {2x}{2x+1}dx = xln(2x+1) - \int ln(2x+1)dx

Now, I have like terms so I say that:

\int ln(2x+1)dx = xln(2x+1) - [xln(2x+1) - \int ln(2x+1)dx].

I am not sure where I made an error here. Any help is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oi, so complicated >_<

You don't have to integrate by parts again. You can split the fraction like:

\frac{2x}{2x+1}=1-\frac{1}{2x+1}

But even simpler is first solving:

\int \ln x dx
then the integral should be a piece of cake. The straight way to Rome is not always the shortest, nor the easiest to follow.
 
\int ln(2x+1)dx = xln(2x+1) - \int \frac {2x}{2x+1}dx = xln(2x+1) - \int 1 - \frac {1}{2x+1} dx
 
Wow, how did I miss that, thanks so much.
 
Anyways, as to the actual method you implemented, your second integration was simply undoing the first integration by parts you tried. That's why you got a useless result at the end.
 
It's not productive to do the problem for the person asking for help. (especially when you do it wrong!) Fortunately, the poster had already figured it out from the hints!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
698
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
96
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Back
Top