By Liwei Deng (P2942) on Monday,
February 5, 2001 - 10:54 pm :
I tried to integrate tan x using integration by parts, but got
some strange results.
Let
be
, and
be
so
, and
using integration by parts,
it simplifies to
so 0 = -1 !!!
What is going on here? Can anyone spot any mistakes in the
calculations?
By James Lingard (Jchl2) on Monday,
February 5, 2001 - 11:30 pm :
Hi,
When you integrate by parts, as with any other (indefinite, i.e. without
limits specified in the integral) integration, you have to introduce an
arbitrary constant, so all that will happen is that the constant will cancel
with the -1 - you've managed to prove that
!
If you want to integrate
, the best way is to notice that
, where
, so you can
substitute
, and you get
James.
By Liwei Deng (P2942) on Wednesday,
February 7, 2001 - 08:11 am :
thanks, James,
but surely there should be a constant of integration on each
side, and they cancel out, so the result is still -1=0?
By James Lingard (Jchl2) on
Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 09:33 am :
No. There should be a constant of integration on each side,
but they don't have to be the same, so they don't cancel out. So it is
conventional to amalgamate them and just put in one constant.
For example, when solving the differential equation
, you get
where we write
for the
, the combined constant of integration.
Here's another simple ''example'', which is essentially the same as your first
problem:
This shows why you really do need the constant of integration. And here's
another ''example'' where we integrate on both sides:
So here we need a constant of integration, which is not the same on both sides.
James.
By Liwei Deng (P2942) on Wednesday,
February 7, 2001 - 10:30 am :
Thanks, James.
I think I understand now.