We have the integer #1, with x>0. And according to the integration by parts method, we have #3. So i=1+i (#4). But that means 1=0. Where's the mistake? Anyone who finds it will earn full respect from me.
I don't know, there are many people here of different ages. Thanks but I've explained many times that it's my sister's stupid theme, I'm using her laptop. Though I like it too It's sh*t. Hint: You need to focus on the integrals' properties.
The integer of 1/x is ln(abs(x)) + c. I never tried to use integration by parts. I just learned it by heart. So no, I don't know.
Yes its integer is lnx + c. The answer is in what you said. And you didn't need to edit your post. In the first post it's clarified that x>0.
Well, I know the answer because 1/x is the derivate of ln(x). But seeing as integration by parts gives a different result there must be some mistake in that method indeed. But I don't see which one.
I see. So when you said "Think of the integral's properties", you meant "think of the relationship between integrals and derivates"?
Someone's playing here and if I get him I'll f*uck him. Anyways, it's a disappointment that you can't find the answer.
