The problem "Fundamental Rule of Leibniz?" greatly confused me about the constant of integration.
In the question, f(x)=∫x1dxand f(−1)=1
We are asked to find the value of f(1)
According to the answer, the value cannot be found.
f(x)=ln∣x∣+C
f(−1)=ln∣−1∣+C=1
ThisgivesC=1
Now,f(1)=ln∣1∣+C′=C′
I think that C should be equal to C' but according to the answer,C=C′
I am unable to understand it. Can someone please explain it.
#Calculus
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
I think the issue may be the lack of continuity of the function x1 at x=0. First, I'm wondering if the initial statement of the question should in fact be
f(x)=∫axt1dt with f(−1)=1 for some non-zero real value a.
Then f(x)=ln∣x∣−ln∣a∣⟹f(−1)=ln∣−1∣−ln∣a∣=1⟹ln∣a∣=−1⟹a=±e1.
This interpretation is still consistent with C=1, but I have phrased the question so that C=−ln∣a∣. Further, to avoid the discontinuity of f(x) at x=0, for negative values of x we would need to make a=−e1, and for positive values of x make a=e1. This may seem like an odd requirement, but in order to make f(x) well-defined for both positive and negative values of x I think that this is necessary.
So with this in mind, we have that f(−1)=∫−e1−1t1dt=ln∣−1∣−ln∣−e1∣=1, and
f(1)=∫e11t1dt=ln(1)−ln(e1)=1.
So with this interpretation we, in essence, find that C=C′, in agreement with your observation, but I had to rephrase the question so that f(x) was well-defined for both positive and negative reals in the first place.
I may have confused you even further with this analysis, but feel free to ask any questions you might have. :)
Sir @Brian Charlesworth and Sir @Sandeep Bhardwaj please help.