Tricky Logarithmic Indefinite Integral

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of the function X^(2x)*ln(x+1), focusing on methods of integration that have been taught, specifically direct integration and substitution. Participants are exploring the validity of their approaches and the legality of certain algebraic manipulations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the potential use of substitution methods and express concerns about the legality of certain steps taken in their attempts. There is a suggestion to rewrite the expression in terms of exponential functions and to clarify the interpretation of the logarithmic terms.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on each other's attempts and suggesting alternative approaches. There is recognition of errors in previous attempts, and some participants are revising their solutions based on the feedback received.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraint of only having learned specific integration methods, which influences their approach to the problem. There is also a noted confusion regarding the logarithmic expressions involved in the integration.

Liquid7800
Messages
76
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi,
Our professor has only taught us these methods for Integration...thus far:

  • Direct Integration

  • Substituion Method

So theoretically we should be able to solve this problem without using Integration by parts or partial fractions...:

Integrate X^(2x)*ln(x+1)

It should be solvable by substitution, direct integration...(double substitution) by algebraic manipulation etc.

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


This is my attempt at a solution...I am concerned I am performing illegal operations, and I would appreciate some help in correcting my errors...
thanks...(see attached)

l_9ac62fd42ba64c70a60d3ad478c85a18.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is some correct stuff in there. Did you notice that point at which ln(x)+1 turned into ln(x+1)? That's not legal. Things went downhill from there. I would suggest you write x^(2x) as e^(2x*ln(x)) and substitute u=x*ln(x). It might go easier. What's du? Uh, actually that may be the whole problem. I think ln x+1 is supposed to be ln(x)+1 not ln(x+1). They are very different.
 
What's du? Uh, actually that may be the whole problem. I think ln x+1 is supposed to be ln(x)+1 not ln(x+1). They are very different.

Thanks...I think you are right...it probably is ln(x)+1 not ln(x+1) (no WONDER it seemed so weird)...I will try again and see what happens..

Thanks a lot!
 
Hi,

Here is my new attempt at this problem...I follwed your suggestions and here is what I came up with...
I appreciate any feed back or suggestions. Thank you!

l_3f3584792cf247de9c9abfa5b57ea2c1.jpg
 
You can simplify your answer, but you also didn't integrate e2u correctly.

I think it would have been just as easy, if not easier, to use u = x2x. Then du turns out real nice.
 
Thanks for the heads up...

You can simplify your answer, but you also didn't integrate e2u correctly.

Your right!...my bad.

I re-did the last part with another round of substitution and finally got:

e^2(x Ln(x))
2

or

X^2x
2

Does this seem right?
 
Liquid7800 said:
Thanks for the heads up...



Your right!...my bad.

I re-did the last part with another round of substitution and finally got:

e^2(x Ln(x))
2

or

X^2x
2

Does this seem right?

That's right. You could always check an integral by differentiating it. :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K