How can I prove that $int _{1}^{1} frac{1}{x} dx…
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment 
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.
$endgroup$

1$begingroup$
What is your background?
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 6 at 3:38 
5$begingroup$
This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Jan 6 at 3:39 
1$begingroup$
@EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
$endgroup$
– Tyberius
Jan 6 at 3:40 
$begingroup$
@Tyberius thank you! That’s gonna help.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45
add a comment 
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.
$endgroup$
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.

1$begingroup$
What is your background?
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 6 at 3:38 
5$begingroup$
This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Jan 6 at 3:39 
1$begingroup$
@EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
$endgroup$
– Tyberius
Jan 6 at 3:40 
$begingroup$
@Tyberius thank you! That’s gonna help.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45
add a comment 

1$begingroup$
What is your background?
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 6 at 3:38 
5$begingroup$
This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Jan 6 at 3:39 
1$begingroup$
@EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
$endgroup$
– Tyberius
Jan 6 at 3:40 
$begingroup$
@Tyberius thank you! That’s gonna help.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45
What is your background?
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 6 at 3:38
What is your background?
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 6 at 3:38
This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Jan 6 at 3:39
This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Jan 6 at 3:39
@EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
$endgroup$
– Tyberius
Jan 6 at 3:40
@EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
$endgroup$
– Tyberius
Jan 6 at 3:40
@Tyberius thank you! That’s gonna help.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45
@Tyberius thank you! That’s gonna help.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45
add a comment 
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{1}^{varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(varepsilon)log(1)+log 1log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {varepsilon}{1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$
$endgroup$

3$begingroup$
The first sentence is not correct. The reason the integral is divergent is not because $1/x$ is undefined at $x=0$, it’s because a computation shows that it’s divergent.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:33 
$begingroup$
Also, you need to take $epsilon to 0^+$ and use $logx$ as your antiderivative instead of $log(x)$. Your computation with $log(1)$ is clearly nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:35

$begingroup$
@HansLundmark: $log x$ as antiderivative of $1/x$ is correct for $x$ in the complex plane. The subtraction $log(varepsilon)log(1)$, is real, although each of the two logs is complex. This way of doing it may be inadvisable for beginners, but it is not “clearly nonsense”.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:18 
$begingroup$
@GEdgar: I know that. But in the context of trying to explain things about real integrals to someone whose background you don’t know (a calculus student perhaps?), I don’t think it makes any sense at all. And the log laws ($log(zw)=log z + log w$, etc.) are not valid without restrictions in the complex domain, so the step that follows definitely needs to be carefully justfied. At the very least, one should specify what branch of the complex log that is used. Just writing out a formal computation like that without any explanation doesn’t prove anything.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:35

$begingroup$
@GEdgar: And if one uses the complex logarithm in an answer like this, at least one ought to say so! With no mention of that, it’s natural to assume that it’s the usual real logarithm, in which case “log(1)” is indeed nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:43
add a comment 
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.
$endgroup$

$begingroup$
What if this a Lebesgue integral?
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45 
$begingroup$
I got it. Thanks for the reply!
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:49 
$begingroup$
@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.
$endgroup$
– ItsJustLogicBro
Jan 6 at 3:51 
$begingroup$
I meant your initial reply for the question itself 🙂 Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 4:36 
$begingroup$
The Lebesgue integral also does not exist.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:19
add a comment 
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing(“editor”, function () {
return StackExchange.using(“mathjaxEditing”, function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [[“$”, “$”], [“\\(“,”\\)”]]);
});
});
}, “mathjaxediting”);
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=”iconimgurwhite” href=”https://imgur.com/”u003eu003c/au003e”,
contentPolicyHtml: “User contributions licensed under u003ca href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/bysa/3.0/”u003ecc bysa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href=”https://stackoverflow.com/legal/contentpolicy”u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e”,
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: “.discardanswer”
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave(‘#loginlink’);
});
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin(‘.newpostlogin’, ‘https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063452%2fhowcaniprovethatint11frac1xdx0%23newanswer’, ‘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
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.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{1}^{varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(varepsilon)log(1)+log 1log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {varepsilon}{1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$
$endgroup$

3$begingroup$
The first sentence is not correct. The reason the integral is divergent is not because $1/x$ is undefined at $x=0$, it’s because a computation shows that it’s divergent.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:33 
$begingroup$
Also, you need to take $epsilon to 0^+$ and use $logx$ as your antiderivative instead of $log(x)$. Your computation with $log(1)$ is clearly nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:35

$begingroup$
@HansLundmark: $log x$ as antiderivative of $1/x$ is correct for $x$ in the complex plane. The subtraction $log(varepsilon)log(1)$, is real, although each of the two logs is complex. This way of doing it may be inadvisable for beginners, but it is not “clearly nonsense”.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:18 
$begingroup$
@GEdgar: I know that. But in the context of trying to explain things about real integrals to someone whose background you don’t know (a calculus student perhaps?), I don’t think it makes any sense at all. And the log laws ($log(zw)=log z + log w$, etc.) are not valid without restrictions in the complex domain, so the step that follows definitely needs to be carefully justfied. At the very least, one should specify what branch of the complex log that is used. Just writing out a formal computation like that without any explanation doesn’t prove anything.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:35

$begingroup$
@GEdgar: And if one uses the complex logarithm in an answer like this, at least one ought to say so! With no mention of that, it’s natural to assume that it’s the usual real logarithm, in which case “log(1)” is indeed nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:43
add a comment 
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.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{1}^{varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(varepsilon)log(1)+log 1log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {varepsilon}{1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$
$endgroup$

3$begingroup$
The first sentence is not correct. The reason the integral is divergent is not because $1/x$ is undefined at $x=0$, it’s because a computation shows that it’s divergent.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:33 
$begingroup$
Also, you need to take $epsilon to 0^+$ and use $logx$ as your antiderivative instead of $log(x)$. Your computation with $log(1)$ is clearly nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:35

$begingroup$
@HansLundmark: $log x$ as antiderivative of $1/x$ is correct for $x$ in the complex plane. The subtraction $log(varepsilon)log(1)$, is real, although each of the two logs is complex. This way of doing it may be inadvisable for beginners, but it is not “clearly nonsense”.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:18 
$begingroup$
@GEdgar: I know that. But in the context of trying to explain things about real integrals to someone whose background you don’t know (a calculus student perhaps?), I don’t think it makes any sense at all. And the log laws ($log(zw)=log z + log w$, etc.) are not valid without restrictions in the complex domain, so the step that follows definitely needs to be carefully justfied. At the very least, one should specify what branch of the complex log that is used. Just writing out a formal computation like that without any explanation doesn’t prove anything.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:35

$begingroup$
@GEdgar: And if one uses the complex logarithm in an answer like this, at least one ought to say so! With no mention of that, it’s natural to assume that it’s the usual real logarithm, in which case “log(1)” is indeed nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:43
add a comment 
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.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{1}^{varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(varepsilon)log(1)+log 1log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {varepsilon}{1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$
$endgroup$
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.$$begin{align*}intlimits_{1}^1frac {mathrm dx}x & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}left[intlimits_{1}^{varepsilon}frac {mathrm dx}x+intlimits_{varepsilon}^1frac {mathrm dx}xright]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}Bigr[log(varepsilon)log(1)+log 1log(varepsilon)Bigr]\ & =limlimits_{varepsilonto0}logleft(frac {varepsilon}{1}frac 1{varepsilon}right)\ & =log 1\ & =0end{align*}$$

3$begingroup$
The first sentence is not correct. The reason the integral is divergent is not because $1/x$ is undefined at $x=0$, it’s because a computation shows that it’s divergent.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:33 
$begingroup$
Also, you need to take $epsilon to 0^+$ and use $logx$ as your antiderivative instead of $log(x)$. Your computation with $log(1)$ is clearly nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:35

$begingroup$
@HansLundmark: $log x$ as antiderivative of $1/x$ is correct for $x$ in the complex plane. The subtraction $log(varepsilon)log(1)$, is real, although each of the two logs is complex. This way of doing it may be inadvisable for beginners, but it is not “clearly nonsense”.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:18 
$begingroup$
@GEdgar: I know that. But in the context of trying to explain things about real integrals to someone whose background you don’t know (a calculus student perhaps?), I don’t think it makes any sense at all. And the log laws ($log(zw)=log z + log w$, etc.) are not valid without restrictions in the complex domain, so the step that follows definitely needs to be carefully justfied. At the very least, one should specify what branch of the complex log that is used. Just writing out a formal computation like that without any explanation doesn’t prove anything.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:35

$begingroup$
@GEdgar: And if one uses the complex logarithm in an answer like this, at least one ought to say so! With no mention of that, it’s natural to assume that it’s the usual real logarithm, in which case “log(1)” is indeed nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:43
add a comment 

3$begingroup$
The first sentence is not correct. The reason the integral is divergent is not because $1/x$ is undefined at $x=0$, it’s because a computation shows that it’s divergent.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:33 
$begingroup$
Also, you need to take $epsilon to 0^+$ and use $logx$ as your antiderivative instead of $log(x)$. Your computation with $log(1)$ is clearly nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:35

$begingroup$
@HansLundmark: $log x$ as antiderivative of $1/x$ is correct for $x$ in the complex plane. The subtraction $log(varepsilon)log(1)$, is real, although each of the two logs is complex. This way of doing it may be inadvisable for beginners, but it is not “clearly nonsense”.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:18 
$begingroup$
@GEdgar: I know that. But in the context of trying to explain things about real integrals to someone whose background you don’t know (a calculus student perhaps?), I don’t think it makes any sense at all. And the log laws ($log(zw)=log z + log w$, etc.) are not valid without restrictions in the complex domain, so the step that follows definitely needs to be carefully justfied. At the very least, one should specify what branch of the complex log that is used. Just writing out a formal computation like that without any explanation doesn’t prove anything.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:35

$begingroup$
@GEdgar: And if one uses the complex logarithm in an answer like this, at least one ought to say so! With no mention of that, it’s natural to assume that it’s the usual real logarithm, in which case “log(1)” is indeed nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:43
The first sentence is not correct. The reason the integral is divergent is not because $1/x$ is undefined at $x=0$, it’s because a computation shows that it’s divergent.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:33
The first sentence is not correct. The reason the integral is divergent is not because $1/x$ is undefined at $x=0$, it’s because a computation shows that it’s divergent.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:33
Also, you need to take $epsilon to 0^+$ and use $logx$ as your antiderivative instead of $log(x)$. Your computation with $log(1)$ is clearly nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:35
Also, you need to take $epsilon to 0^+$ and use $logx$ as your antiderivative instead of $log(x)$. Your computation with $log(1)$ is clearly nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 9:35
@HansLundmark: $log x$ as antiderivative of $1/x$ is correct for $x$ in the complex plane. The subtraction $log(varepsilon)log(1)$, is real, although each of the two logs is complex. This way of doing it may be inadvisable for beginners, but it is not “clearly nonsense”.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:18
@HansLundmark: $log x$ as antiderivative of $1/x$ is correct for $x$ in the complex plane. The subtraction $log(varepsilon)log(1)$, is real, although each of the two logs is complex. This way of doing it may be inadvisable for beginners, but it is not “clearly nonsense”.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:18
@GEdgar: I know that. But in the context of trying to explain things about real integrals to someone whose background you don’t know (a calculus student perhaps?), I don’t think it makes any sense at all. And the log laws ($log(zw)=log z + log w$, etc.) are not valid without restrictions in the complex domain, so the step that follows definitely needs to be carefully justfied. At the very least, one should specify what branch of the complex log that is used. Just writing out a formal computation like that without any explanation doesn’t prove anything.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:35
@GEdgar: I know that. But in the context of trying to explain things about real integrals to someone whose background you don’t know (a calculus student perhaps?), I don’t think it makes any sense at all. And the log laws ($log(zw)=log z + log w$, etc.) are not valid without restrictions in the complex domain, so the step that follows definitely needs to be carefully justfied. At the very least, one should specify what branch of the complex log that is used. Just writing out a formal computation like that without any explanation doesn’t prove anything.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:35
@GEdgar: And if one uses the complex logarithm in an answer like this, at least one ought to say so! With no mention of that, it’s natural to assume that it’s the usual real logarithm, in which case “log(1)” is indeed nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:43
@GEdgar: And if one uses the complex logarithm in an answer like this, at least one ought to say so! With no mention of that, it’s natural to assume that it’s the usual real logarithm, in which case “log(1)” is indeed nonsense.
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Jan 6 at 13:43
add a comment 
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.
$endgroup$

$begingroup$
What if this a Lebesgue integral?
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45 
$begingroup$
I got it. Thanks for the reply!
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:49 
$begingroup$
@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.
$endgroup$
– ItsJustLogicBro
Jan 6 at 3:51 
$begingroup$
I meant your initial reply for the question itself 🙂 Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 4:36 
$begingroup$
The Lebesgue integral also does not exist.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:19
add a comment 
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.
$endgroup$

$begingroup$
What if this a Lebesgue integral?
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45 
$begingroup$
I got it. Thanks for the reply!
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:49 
$begingroup$
@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.
$endgroup$
– ItsJustLogicBro
Jan 6 at 3:51 
$begingroup$
I meant your initial reply for the question itself 🙂 Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 4:36 
$begingroup$
The Lebesgue integral also does not exist.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:19
add a comment 
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.
$endgroup$
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.

$begingroup$
What if this a Lebesgue integral?
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45 
$begingroup$
I got it. Thanks for the reply!
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:49 
$begingroup$
@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.
$endgroup$
– ItsJustLogicBro
Jan 6 at 3:51 
$begingroup$
I meant your initial reply for the question itself 🙂 Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 4:36 
$begingroup$
The Lebesgue integral also does not exist.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:19
add a comment 

$begingroup$
What if this a Lebesgue integral?
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45 
$begingroup$
I got it. Thanks for the reply!
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:49 
$begingroup$
@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.
$endgroup$
– ItsJustLogicBro
Jan 6 at 3:51 
$begingroup$
I meant your initial reply for the question itself 🙂 Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 4:36 
$begingroup$
The Lebesgue integral also does not exist.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:19
What if this a Lebesgue integral?
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45
What if this a Lebesgue integral?
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45
I got it. Thanks for the reply!
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:49
I got it. Thanks for the reply!
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:49
@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.
$endgroup$
– ItsJustLogicBro
Jan 6 at 3:51
@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.
$endgroup$
– ItsJustLogicBro
Jan 6 at 3:51
I meant your initial reply for the question itself 🙂 Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 4:36
I meant your initial reply for the question itself 🙂 Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 4:36
The Lebesgue integral also does not exist.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:19
The Lebesgue integral also does not exist.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Jan 6 at 13:19
add a comment 
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave(‘#loginlink’);
});
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin(‘.newpostlogin’, ‘https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063452%2fhowcaniprovethatint11frac1xdx0%23newanswer’, ‘question_page’);
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave(‘#loginlink’);
});
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave(‘#loginlink’);
});
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave(‘#loginlink’);
});
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
What is your background?
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 6 at 3:38
This is a divergent improper integral. WA might give you the principal value, not the exact value.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Jan 6 at 3:39
@EstMayhem I would look into the concept of the Cauchy principal value. This integral is described in the examples.
$endgroup$
– Tyberius
Jan 6 at 3:40
@Tyberius thank you! That’s gonna help.
$endgroup$
– Est Mayhem
Jan 6 at 3:45