How can I prove that integral is zero precisely?












1














According to WolframAlpha $int _{-1}^{1} frac{1}{x} dx =0 $. But how can this be proved rigorously? I know that the function is odd, but it's unbounded on $[-1;1]$. Leibniz–Newton formula cannot be applied here either. I would really appreciate some help with this matter.






real-analysis calculus integration







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Est Mayhem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    What is your background?
    – Will Jagy
    49 mins ago






  • 3




    This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
    – xbh
    49 mins ago










  • @EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
    – Tyberius
    47 mins ago










  • @Tyberius thank you! That's gonna help.
    – Est Mayhem
    43 mins ago
















1














According to WolframAlpha $int _{-1}^{1} frac{1}{x} dx =0 $. But how can this be proved rigorously? I know that the function is odd, but it's unbounded on $[-1;1]$. Leibniz–Newton formula cannot be applied here either. I would really appreciate some help with this matter.






real-analysis calculus integration







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Est Mayhem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    What is your background?
    – Will Jagy
    49 mins ago






  • 3




    This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
    – xbh
    49 mins ago










  • @EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
    – Tyberius
    47 mins ago










  • @Tyberius thank you! That's gonna help.
    – Est Mayhem
    43 mins ago














1












1








1


1





According to WolframAlpha $int _{-1}^{1} frac{1}{x} dx =0 $. But how can this be proved rigorously? I know that the function is odd, but it's unbounded on $[-1;1]$. Leibniz–Newton formula cannot be applied here either. I would really appreciate some help with this matter.






real-analysis calculus integration







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Est Mayhem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











According to WolframAlpha $int _{-1}^{1} frac{1}{x} dx =0 $. But how can this be proved rigorously? I know that the function is odd, but it's unbounded on $[-1;1]$. Leibniz–Newton formula cannot be applied here either. I would really appreciate some help with this matter.






real-analysis calculus integration




real-analysis calculus integration






share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Est Mayhem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Est Mayhem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question






New contributor




Est Mayhem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 51 mins ago









Est Mayhem

91




91




New contributor




Est Mayhem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Est Mayhem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Est Mayhem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    What is your background?
    – Will Jagy
    49 mins ago






  • 3




    This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
    – xbh
    49 mins ago










  • @EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
    – Tyberius
    47 mins ago










  • @Tyberius thank you! That's gonna help.
    – Est Mayhem
    43 mins ago














  • 1




    What is your background?
    – Will Jagy
    49 mins ago






  • 3




    This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
    – xbh
    49 mins ago










  • @EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
    – Tyberius
    47 mins ago










  • @Tyberius thank you! That's gonna help.
    – Est Mayhem
    43 mins ago








1




1




What is your background?
– Will Jagy
49 mins ago




What is your background?
– Will Jagy
49 mins ago




3




3




This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
– xbh
49 mins ago




This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
– xbh
49 mins ago












@EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
– Tyberius
47 mins ago




@EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
– Tyberius
47 mins ago












@Tyberius thank you! That's gonna help.
– Est Mayhem
43 mins ago




@Tyberius thank you! That's gonna help.
– Est Mayhem
43 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















8














This cannot be proven rigorously because it is not technically true.



The Cauchy principal value of your integral is $0$, but if you go back to the definition of the improper Riemann integral you will find that this quantity is undefined.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




ItsJustLogicBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • What if this a Lebesgue integral?
    – Est Mayhem
    42 mins ago










  • I got it. Thanks for the reply!
    – Est Mayhem
    38 mins ago










  • @EstMayhem Well I don't know who replied, but you are welcome? The answer is that the function $1/x$ is not Lebesgue integrable on this interval.
    – ItsJustLogicBro
    37 mins ago



















0














The integral is divergent due to $f(x)=frac 1x$ being undefined at $x=0$. However, if we consider the principal value of the integral, then the answer is zero. I'm also assuming this is what Wolfram Alpha gives.



To prove this, split the integral up over its positive and negative parts and replace the zero with a variable and have it tend towards zero.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{-1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{-1}^{-varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(-varepsilon)-log(-1)+log 1-log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {-varepsilon}{-1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Est Mayhem is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063452%2fhow-can-i-prove-that-integral-is-zero-precisely%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    8














    This cannot be proven rigorously because it is not technically true.



    The Cauchy principal value of your integral is $0$, but if you go back to the definition of the improper Riemann integral you will find that this quantity is undefined.






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    ItsJustLogicBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • What if this a Lebesgue integral?
      – Est Mayhem
      42 mins ago










    • I got it. Thanks for the reply!
      – Est Mayhem
      38 mins ago










    • @EstMayhem Well I don't know who replied, but you are welcome? The answer is that the function $1/x$ is not Lebesgue integrable on this interval.
      – ItsJustLogicBro
      37 mins ago
















    8














    This cannot be proven rigorously because it is not technically true.



    The Cauchy principal value of your integral is $0$, but if you go back to the definition of the improper Riemann integral you will find that this quantity is undefined.






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    ItsJustLogicBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • What if this a Lebesgue integral?
      – Est Mayhem
      42 mins ago










    • I got it. Thanks for the reply!
      – Est Mayhem
      38 mins ago










    • @EstMayhem Well I don't know who replied, but you are welcome? The answer is that the function $1/x$ is not Lebesgue integrable on this interval.
      – ItsJustLogicBro
      37 mins ago














    8












    8








    8






    This cannot be proven rigorously because it is not technically true.



    The Cauchy principal value of your integral is $0$, but if you go back to the definition of the improper Riemann integral you will find that this quantity is undefined.






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    ItsJustLogicBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    This cannot be proven rigorously because it is not technically true.



    The Cauchy principal value of your integral is $0$, but if you go back to the definition of the improper Riemann integral you will find that this quantity is undefined.







    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    ItsJustLogicBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer






    New contributor




    ItsJustLogicBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered 49 mins ago









    ItsJustLogicBro

    1561




    1561




    New contributor




    ItsJustLogicBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    ItsJustLogicBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    ItsJustLogicBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.












    • What if this a Lebesgue integral?
      – Est Mayhem
      42 mins ago










    • I got it. Thanks for the reply!
      – Est Mayhem
      38 mins ago










    • @EstMayhem Well I don't know who replied, but you are welcome? The answer is that the function $1/x$ is not Lebesgue integrable on this interval.
      – ItsJustLogicBro
      37 mins ago


















    • What if this a Lebesgue integral?
      – Est Mayhem
      42 mins ago










    • I got it. Thanks for the reply!
      – Est Mayhem
      38 mins ago










    • @EstMayhem Well I don't know who replied, but you are welcome? The answer is that the function $1/x$ is not Lebesgue integrable on this interval.
      – ItsJustLogicBro
      37 mins ago
















    What if this a Lebesgue integral?
    – Est Mayhem
    42 mins ago




    What if this a Lebesgue integral?
    – Est Mayhem
    42 mins ago












    I got it. Thanks for the reply!
    – Est Mayhem
    38 mins ago




    I got it. Thanks for the reply!
    – Est Mayhem
    38 mins ago












    @EstMayhem Well I don't know who replied, but you are welcome? The answer is that the function $1/x$ is not Lebesgue integrable on this interval.
    – ItsJustLogicBro
    37 mins ago




    @EstMayhem Well I don't know who replied, but you are welcome? The answer is that the function $1/x$ is not Lebesgue integrable on this interval.
    – ItsJustLogicBro
    37 mins ago











    0














    The integral is divergent due to $f(x)=frac 1x$ being undefined at $x=0$. However, if we consider the principal value of the integral, then the answer is zero. I'm also assuming this is what Wolfram Alpha gives.



    To prove this, split the integral up over its positive and negative parts and replace the zero with a variable and have it tend towards zero.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{-1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{-1}^{-varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(-varepsilon)-log(-1)+log 1-log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {-varepsilon}{-1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      0














      The integral is divergent due to $f(x)=frac 1x$ being undefined at $x=0$. However, if we consider the principal value of the integral, then the answer is zero. I'm also assuming this is what Wolfram Alpha gives.



      To prove this, split the integral up over its positive and negative parts and replace the zero with a variable and have it tend towards zero.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{-1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{-1}^{-varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(-varepsilon)-log(-1)+log 1-log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {-varepsilon}{-1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        0












        0








        0






        The integral is divergent due to $f(x)=frac 1x$ being undefined at $x=0$. However, if we consider the principal value of the integral, then the answer is zero. I'm also assuming this is what Wolfram Alpha gives.



        To prove this, split the integral up over its positive and negative parts and replace the zero with a variable and have it tend towards zero.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{-1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{-1}^{-varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(-varepsilon)-log(-1)+log 1-log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {-varepsilon}{-1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$






        share|cite|improve this answer












        The integral is divergent due to $f(x)=frac 1x$ being undefined at $x=0$. However, if we consider the principal value of the integral, then the answer is zero. I'm also assuming this is what Wolfram Alpha gives.



        To prove this, split the integral up over its positive and negative parts and replace the zero with a variable and have it tend towards zero.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{-1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{-1}^{-varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(-varepsilon)-log(-1)+log 1-log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {-varepsilon}{-1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 39 mins ago









        Frank W.

        3,0461320




        3,0461320






















            Est Mayhem is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Est Mayhem is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Est Mayhem is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Est Mayhem is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063452%2fhow-can-i-prove-that-integral-is-zero-precisely%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Costa Masnaga

            Image
            .mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-text-div>div,.mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-text-full-div>div{font-size:90%}.mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-image div{width:52px}.mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-text-full-div .hide-when-compact{display:block} Questa voce o sezione sull'argomento Lombardia non cita le fonti necessarie o quelle presenti sono insufficienti . Puoi migliorare questa voce aggiungendo citazioni da fonti attendibili secondo le linee guida sull'uso delle fonti. Segui i suggerimenti del progetto di riferimento. Costa Masnaga comune Localizzazione Stato   Italia Regione Lombardia Provincia Lecco Amministrazione Sindaco Sabina Panzeri (Al centro il cittadino) dall'08/06/2009 Territorio Coordinate 45°46′N 9°17′E  /  45.766667°N 9.283333°E 45.766667; 9.283333  ( Costa Masnaga ) Coordinate: 45°46′N 9°17′E  /  45.766667°N 9.283333°E 45.766667; 9.283333  ( Costa Masnaga ) Altitudine 318 m s.l.m...
            Read more

            Fotorealismo

            Image
            Guerrino Boatto, Venice's St. Barnaba Church and canal Il fotorealismo è un genere di pittura basato sull'uso di una o più fotografie dalle quali l'artista prende le informazioni necessarie da utilizzare poi nel processo della creazione dell'opera, in genere ad olio o ad acrilico, al fine di avere un aspetto finale il più simile possibile alla fotografia. Indice 1 Storia 2 Lista dei fotorealisti 3 Note 4 Voci correlate 5 Altri progetti Storia | Il fotorealismo è un movimento che nasce negli Stati Uniti d'America alla fine degli anni sessanta [1] sulla scia della Pop Art [2] [3] [4] , e insieme condividono il carattere reazionario verso la travolgente ascesa dei media, che alla metà del ventesimo secolo si trasforma in un fenomeno di massa talmente imponente da minacciare il valore dell'immagine nell'arte. [5] [6] Ne consegue così che, colto il gesto d'inizio che fu della Pop Art, i fotorealisti aprono ad un ...
            Read more

            Sidney Franklin

            Image
            Questa voce sull'argomento registi statunitensi è solo un abbozzo . Contribuisci a migliorarla secondo le convenzioni di Wikipedia. Sidney Franklin, foto di Carl Van Vechten Oscar alla memoria Irving G. Thalberg 1943 Sidney Franklin , all'anagrafe Sidney Arnold Franklin , (San Francisco, 21 marzo 1893 – Santa Monica, 18 maggio 1972), è stato un regista, produttore cinematografico e attore statunitense. Il 20 giugno 1963, si sposò con l'attrice australiana Enid Bennett. Il matrimonio durò fino alla morte dell'attrice, il 14 maggio 1969 [1] Indice 1 Filmografia 1.1 Regista 1.2 Aiuto regia (parziale) 1.3 Produttore 1.4 Attore (parziale) 2 Note 3 Altri progetti 4 Collegamenti esterni Filmografia | Regista | The Baby , co-regia Chester M. Franklin (1915) The Rivals , co-regia Chester M. Franklin (1915) Little Dick's First Case , co-regia Chester M. Franklin (1915) Her Filmland Hero , co-...
            Read more