David and Henry were asked to integrate
Both of them agreed that the only way to solve this problem was integration by parts, and wrote down the rule as follows: They both used this rule and realized that they had ended up still having to take the integral
Then they tried integration by parts again:
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
The rule is correct. Here's some more information on integration by parts, including the proof. David's integral is correct, and here's how.
First integration by parts:
u = ln 2 ( x ) , d v = d x , d u = x 2 ln ( x ) , v = x
∫ ln 2 ( x ) = x ln 2 ( x ) − 2 ∫ ln ( x )
Second integration by parts:
u = ln ( x ) , d v = d x , d u = x 1 , v = x
2 ∫ ln ( x ) = x ln ( x ) - ∫ 1
2 ∫ ln ( x ) = 2 x ln ( x ) − 2 x
∫ ln 2 ( x ) = x ln 2 ( x ) − 2 x ln ( x ) + 2 x
∫ ln 2 ( x ) = x ( ln 2 ( x ) − 2 ln ( x ) + 2 )
Henry's answer is correct, but at first glance it might seem like we have a problem. ln ( 0 ) is undefined! If you graphed ln ( x ) , there'd be a vertical asymptote. And because ln ( x ) isn't continuous over the closed interval [ 0 , 1 ] , ln 2 ( x ) isn't either. There's still a solution, though. Let's split x ln 2 ( x ) − 2 ∫ ln ( x ) into x ln 2 ( x ) and − 2 ∫ ln ( x ) . Let's analyze x → 0 + lim x ln 2 ( x ) . Note that this isn't 0, just very, very, close. We set up x ln 2 ( x ) for L'Hopital's rule by swapping x for 1 / x 1 . Now we evaluate x → 0 + lim 1 / x ln 2 ( x ) . Let's use L'Hopital's rule, and take the derivative of the numerator and denominator. We end up with x → 0 + lim − 1 / x 2 1 / x , which we simplify to x → 0 + lim − 2 x . We use direct substitution to get 0. Now we turn to what we are left with, or − 2 ∫ ln ( x ) . Let's use the expanded form of our integration by parts to get ( x → 0 + lim − 2 x ln ( x ) ) + 2 ∫ 0 1 1 , and we use L'Hopital's rule the exact same way we did before, getting 0. We're left with 2 ∫ 0 1 1 , which is simply 2 ∗ 1 − 2 ∗ 0 , or 2 .