∫ 0 ∞ 1 + x 2 ln ( x ) d x = ?
Give your answer to 3 decimal places.
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.
Another method : Using the substitution x = tan θ , we have I = ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + x 2 ln ( x ) d x = ∫ 0 π / 2 ln ( tan θ ) d θ = ∫ 0 π / 2 ln ( sin θ ) d θ − ∫ 0 π / 2 ln ( cos θ ) d θ = ∫ 0 π / 2 ln ( cos θ ) d θ − ∫ 0 π / 2 ln ( cos θ ) d θ = 0
Log in to reply
I'll just go with that
same method!!
Choose a branch cut of natural log in the lower half of the complex plane. Take ln ( z ) = ∣ z ∣ for z on the positive real ray.
Then
∫ − ∞ ∞ 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) d z = ∫ − ∞ 0 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) d z + ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) d z
= ∫ − ∞ 0 1 + z 2 ln ( ∣ z ∣ ) + π i d z + ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) d z
= ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + z 2 π i d z + 2 ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) d z . ( ∗ )
Let C be a large semicircle above the real axis. Since 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) ∣ z ∣ → 0 as z becomes small, we may ignore the singularity at the origin by deforming C among an arbitrarily small semicircle and apply Cauchy's integration formula to find find ∫ C 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) d z = 2 π i 2 i ln ( i ) = 2 π 2 i .
Similarly, 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) ∣ z ∣ → 0 as z becomes large, so as the radius of C becomes large the arc does not contribute to the integral and we find
∫ − ∞ ∞ 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) d z = 2 π 2 i . ( ∗ ∗ )
Moreover,
∫ 0 ∞ 1 + z 2 π i d z = b → ∞ lim π i ( tan − 1 ( b ) − tan − 1 ( 0 ) ) = 2 π 2 i . ( ∗ ∗ ∗ ) .
Finally, combining ( ∗ ) , ( ∗ ∗ ) and ( ∗ ∗ ∗ ) yields
2 π 2 i = 2 π 2 i + 2 ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) d z ,
so
∫ 0 ∞ 1 + z 2 ln ( z ) d z = 0 .
Not necessary to use Contour integration.
Log in to reply
There are many ways to solve a problem. Counter integration is quite a natural process for this, due to the denominator.
Log in to reply
Yes. And there are some definite integrals which are impossible to evaluate without contour integration. I meant to say that, it is not one of those.
Log in to reply
@Abhishek Sinha – Ah ic :)
I made the comment because contour integration was my first approach lol.
l e t I = ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + x 2 ln ( x ) d x p u t u = x 1 ⇒ I = ∫ ∞ 0 1 + ( x 1 ) 2 ln ( x 1 ) x 2 − d x = − ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + x 2 ln ( x ) d x I = − I ⇒ I = 0
Put x = tan θ ⟹ d x = sec 2 θ d θ
I = ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + x 2 ln ( x ) d x = ∫ 0 2 π ln ( tan θ ) d θ = ∫ 0 2 π ln ( tan ( 2 π − θ ) ) d θ = ∫ 0 2 π ln ( cot θ ) d θ )
Adding yields 2 I = ∫ 0 2 π ln ( tan θ ) + ln ( cot θ ) d θ
2 I = ∫ 0 2 π ln ( tan θ ⋅ cot θ ) d θ = ∫ 0 2 π ln ( 1 ) d θ = 0
Interesting approach with the tan θ switch.
Note that you are essentially doing a t = x 1 variable change.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Just observe I = ∫ 0 ∞ 1 + x 2 ln ( x ) d x = ∫ 0 1 1 + x 2 ln ( x ) d x + ∫ 1 ∞ 1 + x 2 ln ( x ) d x = I 1 + I 2 Now making the substitution y = x 1 in I 2 , we have I 2 = − ∫ 1 0 1 + y 2 ln ( 1 / y ) d y = − ∫ 0 1 1 + y 2 ln ( y ) d y = − I 1 Hence I = I 1 + I 2 = 0