Where have I gone wrong in this integral by parts

  • Thread starter Thread starter vande060
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral parts
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The integral of ln(2x+1)dx can be solved using integration by parts, leading to the expression 1/2[(2x+1)ln(2x+1) - (2x +1)]. The discrepancy between the user's solution and the book's answer arises from the omission of the integration constant. The book's answer, 1/2*(2x+1)ln(2x+1) - x, is equivalent to the user's result plus a constant, which can be verified by differentiation. The key takeaway is the importance of including the integration constant in indefinite integrals.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of integration by parts
  • Familiarity with logarithmic functions
  • Knowledge of substitution methods in integration
  • Basic differentiation techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of integration by parts in detail
  • Practice solving integrals involving logarithmic functions
  • Learn about the significance of the integration constant in indefinite integrals
  • Explore advanced integration techniques, such as integration by substitution
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, particularly those learning integration techniques, as well as educators looking for examples of common mistakes in solving integrals.

vande060
Messages
180
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



∫ ln(2x+1)dx





Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



∫ ln(2x+1)dx

1/2∫2ln(2x+1)dx

t = 2x+1
dt = 2dx

1/2∫ln(t)dt

u = ln(t)
du = 1/t dt
dv = dt
v = t

tln(t) - ∫ t*1/t dt
tln(t) - ∫ dt
tln(t) - t

1/2*[(2x+1)ln(2x+1) - (2x +1)]

instead of this answer my book gives

1/2*(2x+1)ln(2x+1) - x

where did I go wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try it without the initial substitution and you get the answer in the book.

I couldn't find anything wrong in your steps. I suppose if you expand your answer, you get you get the books answer + 1/2. I'm not sure, but i guess that can just be absorbed into the constant c. The easiest way to realize this is to just take the derivative.
 
You didn't go wrong, except that you forgot the integration constant at the end. If you had put it, you would have seen why the answer you found and the one in the book difer by 1/2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K