integrating $int frac{1}{e^x +1}:dx$ [duplicate]
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
How do I solve $displaystyleint frac{mathrm{d}x}{e^x + 1} $?
8 answers
I've found a method for integration of $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$. However none of the information I found explains the intuition. It might be clear for most people, but I was hoping that somebody could expand on it.
The problem of trying to u-substitute $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$ becomes evident.
Since $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$, where I substitute $e^x$ for u, gives me:
$$intfrac{1}{u}frac{du}{e^x}$$
Which still leaves me with $e^x $.
The method that solves it is by expanding the numerator with $e^x - e^x$ which gives us the integral:
$$int frac{e^x + 1 - e^x}{e^x +1}dx$$
I have seen that it works. But what compels somebody to expand the numerator with $e^x - e^x$? What benefit does a mathematician intuitively see with this? How could I be sure that it just doesn't give me back the initial integral:
$$intfrac{1}{u}frac{du}{e^x}$$
?
real-analysis calculus integration indefinite-integrals
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by lab bhattacharjee
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Dec 27 '18 at 12:50
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
How do I solve $displaystyleint frac{mathrm{d}x}{e^x + 1} $?
8 answers
I've found a method for integration of $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$. However none of the information I found explains the intuition. It might be clear for most people, but I was hoping that somebody could expand on it.
The problem of trying to u-substitute $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$ becomes evident.
Since $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$, where I substitute $e^x$ for u, gives me:
$$intfrac{1}{u}frac{du}{e^x}$$
Which still leaves me with $e^x $.
The method that solves it is by expanding the numerator with $e^x - e^x$ which gives us the integral:
$$int frac{e^x + 1 - e^x}{e^x +1}dx$$
I have seen that it works. But what compels somebody to expand the numerator with $e^x - e^x$? What benefit does a mathematician intuitively see with this? How could I be sure that it just doesn't give me back the initial integral:
$$intfrac{1}{u}frac{du}{e^x}$$
?
real-analysis calculus integration indefinite-integrals
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by lab bhattacharjee
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Dec 27 '18 at 12:50
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
$begingroup$
Now that you have a link to the question math.stackexchange.com/questions/770114/…, you may see from its answers that nothing compels anyone to change $1$ to $e^x + 1 - e^x.$ It is merely one of several different techniques that could be used.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
How do I solve $displaystyleint frac{mathrm{d}x}{e^x + 1} $?
8 answers
I've found a method for integration of $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$. However none of the information I found explains the intuition. It might be clear for most people, but I was hoping that somebody could expand on it.
The problem of trying to u-substitute $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$ becomes evident.
Since $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$, where I substitute $e^x$ for u, gives me:
$$intfrac{1}{u}frac{du}{e^x}$$
Which still leaves me with $e^x $.
The method that solves it is by expanding the numerator with $e^x - e^x$ which gives us the integral:
$$int frac{e^x + 1 - e^x}{e^x +1}dx$$
I have seen that it works. But what compels somebody to expand the numerator with $e^x - e^x$? What benefit does a mathematician intuitively see with this? How could I be sure that it just doesn't give me back the initial integral:
$$intfrac{1}{u}frac{du}{e^x}$$
?
real-analysis calculus integration indefinite-integrals
$endgroup$
This question already has an answer here:
How do I solve $displaystyleint frac{mathrm{d}x}{e^x + 1} $?
8 answers
I've found a method for integration of $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$. However none of the information I found explains the intuition. It might be clear for most people, but I was hoping that somebody could expand on it.
The problem of trying to u-substitute $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$ becomes evident.
Since $frac{1}{e^x +1}dx$, where I substitute $e^x$ for u, gives me:
$$intfrac{1}{u}frac{du}{e^x}$$
Which still leaves me with $e^x $.
The method that solves it is by expanding the numerator with $e^x - e^x$ which gives us the integral:
$$int frac{e^x + 1 - e^x}{e^x +1}dx$$
I have seen that it works. But what compels somebody to expand the numerator with $e^x - e^x$? What benefit does a mathematician intuitively see with this? How could I be sure that it just doesn't give me back the initial integral:
$$intfrac{1}{u}frac{du}{e^x}$$
?
This question already has an answer here:
How do I solve $displaystyleint frac{mathrm{d}x}{e^x + 1} $?
8 answers
real-analysis calculus integration indefinite-integrals
real-analysis calculus integration indefinite-integrals
edited Jan 8 at 14:41
David K
54.1k342116
54.1k342116
asked Dec 26 '18 at 0:32
oxodooxodo
32219
32219
marked as duplicate by lab bhattacharjee
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Dec 27 '18 at 12:50
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by lab bhattacharjee
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Dec 27 '18 at 12:50
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
$begingroup$
Now that you have a link to the question math.stackexchange.com/questions/770114/…, you may see from its answers that nothing compels anyone to change $1$ to $e^x + 1 - e^x.$ It is merely one of several different techniques that could be used.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now that you have a link to the question math.stackexchange.com/questions/770114/…, you may see from its answers that nothing compels anyone to change $1$ to $e^x + 1 - e^x.$ It is merely one of several different techniques that could be used.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:39
$begingroup$
Now that you have a link to the question math.stackexchange.com/questions/770114/…, you may see from its answers that nothing compels anyone to change $1$ to $e^x + 1 - e^x.$ It is merely one of several different techniques that could be used.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:39
$begingroup$
Now that you have a link to the question math.stackexchange.com/questions/770114/…, you may see from its answers that nothing compels anyone to change $1$ to $e^x + 1 - e^x.$ It is merely one of several different techniques that could be used.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:39
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Various integrals - or really, a number of problems in math (I've seen it used in real analysis for stuff involving limits by the $epsilon - delta$ definition) - can be solved by this technique of adding and subtracting the same thing from a quantity. For example,
$$e^t = e^t + x - x$$
This is because $x-x$ (anything minus itself) is $0$. So adding and subtracting something from itself explicitly like this is fundamentally no different from adding $0$ to something, and thus perfectly valid - if pointless at face value. But sometimes this adding and subtracting suffices in giving us a manipulation that is more handy. In this case, we see that we can split up the fraction after this manipulation:
$$frac{1}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1 - e^x}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1}{e^x + 1} + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1} = 1 + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1}$$
Notice how this might be easier to integrate, namely because of a $u$-substitution of $u = e^x+1$? This manipulation lets us do that!
I'm not sure if there is some sort of underlying intuition, necessarily, beyond trying to find a method which works. Some problems are a matter of trial and error to find something which works.
Sure, sure, in school you may often know ahead of time the method you need to use because you might be covering related material at the time and it's like "well, why would the homework be on something unrelated to the material, so obviously I'm expected to use this method that we're covering." But if a problem faces you out of the blue, say in competition mathematics or in the real world, you have less guidance and so trial and error might be necessary.
Of course, there are other ways to solve this particular integral, as was touched on in two other answers, you need not limit yourself to one method of problem-solving.
It's just a nice little tool to have in your arsenal, one that should be kept in mind because despite its simplicity it is deceptively helpful in some cases. I don't think there's an underlying reason as to why or when it should be used other than "it works," though.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your very thought out answer! I do also try to manipulate whenever I might see a possibility to do so. For this particular problem I could not recognize any methods of manipulating inorder to help me. I actively try to not limit myself to methods discussed in the chapter, but I could not see how somebody would think of expanding the numerator by $e^x - e^x$.
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:08
1
$begingroup$
I was in competition mathematics. Your note is correct. In fact in school you just solve trivial exercises most of the time. In competition mathematics you have to know all tools from school perfectly but this still does not guarantee you will solve any problem. That's what I loved about it. So it is really about your intuition and problem solving skills and ability to think out of the box. And these I think come 1) either with plain talent or 2) with lots of problem solving and self exploration. I've always wondered what (philosophically speaking) what is the relationship between the two.
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 1:10
$begingroup$
The other key point about this solution is that you have to think two or even three steps (depending on how you count a "step") ahead, not just one. Because once you apply the trick you don't directly get $du$ - instead, you have to first do the cancellation and then apply linearity before you have a $frac{du}{u}$ form. But often this type of thinking is not taught - either you are born with it naturally or have to sweet laddie luckie have the right people to teach you this habit.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:39
$begingroup$
@peter.petrov - do you think that the skill for "competition" maths gives a huge edge in actual usage of maths in more sophisticated disciplines like research or application and this if you (meaning this poster writing this specific comment) didn't develop that to participate in that kind of thing then you are at a tremendous disadvantage that means you should give up or settle?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:44
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer I don't think anyone should give up. If one has interest in math they should play with it no matter what. I don't consider myself too talented in math (meaning I have seen contestants way smarter than me) but so what... Also as I said I am not sure what fraction is the talent and what fraction is the systematic every day work. I don't know if Einstein really really said this but I like this thought: “intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience”...
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 22:37
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Hint:
$$frac1{e^x+1}=frac{e^{-x}}{1+e^{-x}}.$$
And since the derivative of $1+e^{-x}$ is $-e^{-x}$, this suggests a useful substitution.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
NO need of substitution: it is already of the form $$;-intfrac{f'}f ,dx=log|f|+C;$$
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 0:58
$begingroup$
$-log|f|;$ , of course.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 1:07
$begingroup$
Cheers @Alejandro . So ideally when solving similar problems you want to find a common factor?
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:13
$begingroup$
@DonAntonio The substitution suggested is $f=1+e^{-x}$
$endgroup$
– Shubham Johri
Dec 26 '18 at 5:57
$begingroup$
@ShubhamJohri I know. Still it isn't needed as if one recognizes the integrand as $;frac{f'}f;$ , then the integral is immediate.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 7:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can still substitute $u=e^x, frac{du}{u} = dx$, and solve the integral. It's a perfectly valid choice for a substitution.
$$int frac{1}{e^x+1}dx = int frac{1}{(u+1)u}du $$
You proceed by fractional decomposition of $frac{1}{(u+1)u}$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Various integrals - or really, a number of problems in math (I've seen it used in real analysis for stuff involving limits by the $epsilon - delta$ definition) - can be solved by this technique of adding and subtracting the same thing from a quantity. For example,
$$e^t = e^t + x - x$$
This is because $x-x$ (anything minus itself) is $0$. So adding and subtracting something from itself explicitly like this is fundamentally no different from adding $0$ to something, and thus perfectly valid - if pointless at face value. But sometimes this adding and subtracting suffices in giving us a manipulation that is more handy. In this case, we see that we can split up the fraction after this manipulation:
$$frac{1}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1 - e^x}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1}{e^x + 1} + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1} = 1 + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1}$$
Notice how this might be easier to integrate, namely because of a $u$-substitution of $u = e^x+1$? This manipulation lets us do that!
I'm not sure if there is some sort of underlying intuition, necessarily, beyond trying to find a method which works. Some problems are a matter of trial and error to find something which works.
Sure, sure, in school you may often know ahead of time the method you need to use because you might be covering related material at the time and it's like "well, why would the homework be on something unrelated to the material, so obviously I'm expected to use this method that we're covering." But if a problem faces you out of the blue, say in competition mathematics or in the real world, you have less guidance and so trial and error might be necessary.
Of course, there are other ways to solve this particular integral, as was touched on in two other answers, you need not limit yourself to one method of problem-solving.
It's just a nice little tool to have in your arsenal, one that should be kept in mind because despite its simplicity it is deceptively helpful in some cases. I don't think there's an underlying reason as to why or when it should be used other than "it works," though.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your very thought out answer! I do also try to manipulate whenever I might see a possibility to do so. For this particular problem I could not recognize any methods of manipulating inorder to help me. I actively try to not limit myself to methods discussed in the chapter, but I could not see how somebody would think of expanding the numerator by $e^x - e^x$.
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:08
1
$begingroup$
I was in competition mathematics. Your note is correct. In fact in school you just solve trivial exercises most of the time. In competition mathematics you have to know all tools from school perfectly but this still does not guarantee you will solve any problem. That's what I loved about it. So it is really about your intuition and problem solving skills and ability to think out of the box. And these I think come 1) either with plain talent or 2) with lots of problem solving and self exploration. I've always wondered what (philosophically speaking) what is the relationship between the two.
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 1:10
$begingroup$
The other key point about this solution is that you have to think two or even three steps (depending on how you count a "step") ahead, not just one. Because once you apply the trick you don't directly get $du$ - instead, you have to first do the cancellation and then apply linearity before you have a $frac{du}{u}$ form. But often this type of thinking is not taught - either you are born with it naturally or have to sweet laddie luckie have the right people to teach you this habit.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:39
$begingroup$
@peter.petrov - do you think that the skill for "competition" maths gives a huge edge in actual usage of maths in more sophisticated disciplines like research or application and this if you (meaning this poster writing this specific comment) didn't develop that to participate in that kind of thing then you are at a tremendous disadvantage that means you should give up or settle?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:44
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer I don't think anyone should give up. If one has interest in math they should play with it no matter what. I don't consider myself too talented in math (meaning I have seen contestants way smarter than me) but so what... Also as I said I am not sure what fraction is the talent and what fraction is the systematic every day work. I don't know if Einstein really really said this but I like this thought: “intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience”...
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 22:37
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Various integrals - or really, a number of problems in math (I've seen it used in real analysis for stuff involving limits by the $epsilon - delta$ definition) - can be solved by this technique of adding and subtracting the same thing from a quantity. For example,
$$e^t = e^t + x - x$$
This is because $x-x$ (anything minus itself) is $0$. So adding and subtracting something from itself explicitly like this is fundamentally no different from adding $0$ to something, and thus perfectly valid - if pointless at face value. But sometimes this adding and subtracting suffices in giving us a manipulation that is more handy. In this case, we see that we can split up the fraction after this manipulation:
$$frac{1}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1 - e^x}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1}{e^x + 1} + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1} = 1 + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1}$$
Notice how this might be easier to integrate, namely because of a $u$-substitution of $u = e^x+1$? This manipulation lets us do that!
I'm not sure if there is some sort of underlying intuition, necessarily, beyond trying to find a method which works. Some problems are a matter of trial and error to find something which works.
Sure, sure, in school you may often know ahead of time the method you need to use because you might be covering related material at the time and it's like "well, why would the homework be on something unrelated to the material, so obviously I'm expected to use this method that we're covering." But if a problem faces you out of the blue, say in competition mathematics or in the real world, you have less guidance and so trial and error might be necessary.
Of course, there are other ways to solve this particular integral, as was touched on in two other answers, you need not limit yourself to one method of problem-solving.
It's just a nice little tool to have in your arsenal, one that should be kept in mind because despite its simplicity it is deceptively helpful in some cases. I don't think there's an underlying reason as to why or when it should be used other than "it works," though.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your very thought out answer! I do also try to manipulate whenever I might see a possibility to do so. For this particular problem I could not recognize any methods of manipulating inorder to help me. I actively try to not limit myself to methods discussed in the chapter, but I could not see how somebody would think of expanding the numerator by $e^x - e^x$.
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:08
1
$begingroup$
I was in competition mathematics. Your note is correct. In fact in school you just solve trivial exercises most of the time. In competition mathematics you have to know all tools from school perfectly but this still does not guarantee you will solve any problem. That's what I loved about it. So it is really about your intuition and problem solving skills and ability to think out of the box. And these I think come 1) either with plain talent or 2) with lots of problem solving and self exploration. I've always wondered what (philosophically speaking) what is the relationship between the two.
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 1:10
$begingroup$
The other key point about this solution is that you have to think two or even three steps (depending on how you count a "step") ahead, not just one. Because once you apply the trick you don't directly get $du$ - instead, you have to first do the cancellation and then apply linearity before you have a $frac{du}{u}$ form. But often this type of thinking is not taught - either you are born with it naturally or have to sweet laddie luckie have the right people to teach you this habit.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:39
$begingroup$
@peter.petrov - do you think that the skill for "competition" maths gives a huge edge in actual usage of maths in more sophisticated disciplines like research or application and this if you (meaning this poster writing this specific comment) didn't develop that to participate in that kind of thing then you are at a tremendous disadvantage that means you should give up or settle?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:44
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer I don't think anyone should give up. If one has interest in math they should play with it no matter what. I don't consider myself too talented in math (meaning I have seen contestants way smarter than me) but so what... Also as I said I am not sure what fraction is the talent and what fraction is the systematic every day work. I don't know if Einstein really really said this but I like this thought: “intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience”...
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 22:37
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Various integrals - or really, a number of problems in math (I've seen it used in real analysis for stuff involving limits by the $epsilon - delta$ definition) - can be solved by this technique of adding and subtracting the same thing from a quantity. For example,
$$e^t = e^t + x - x$$
This is because $x-x$ (anything minus itself) is $0$. So adding and subtracting something from itself explicitly like this is fundamentally no different from adding $0$ to something, and thus perfectly valid - if pointless at face value. But sometimes this adding and subtracting suffices in giving us a manipulation that is more handy. In this case, we see that we can split up the fraction after this manipulation:
$$frac{1}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1 - e^x}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1}{e^x + 1} + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1} = 1 + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1}$$
Notice how this might be easier to integrate, namely because of a $u$-substitution of $u = e^x+1$? This manipulation lets us do that!
I'm not sure if there is some sort of underlying intuition, necessarily, beyond trying to find a method which works. Some problems are a matter of trial and error to find something which works.
Sure, sure, in school you may often know ahead of time the method you need to use because you might be covering related material at the time and it's like "well, why would the homework be on something unrelated to the material, so obviously I'm expected to use this method that we're covering." But if a problem faces you out of the blue, say in competition mathematics or in the real world, you have less guidance and so trial and error might be necessary.
Of course, there are other ways to solve this particular integral, as was touched on in two other answers, you need not limit yourself to one method of problem-solving.
It's just a nice little tool to have in your arsenal, one that should be kept in mind because despite its simplicity it is deceptively helpful in some cases. I don't think there's an underlying reason as to why or when it should be used other than "it works," though.
$endgroup$
Various integrals - or really, a number of problems in math (I've seen it used in real analysis for stuff involving limits by the $epsilon - delta$ definition) - can be solved by this technique of adding and subtracting the same thing from a quantity. For example,
$$e^t = e^t + x - x$$
This is because $x-x$ (anything minus itself) is $0$. So adding and subtracting something from itself explicitly like this is fundamentally no different from adding $0$ to something, and thus perfectly valid - if pointless at face value. But sometimes this adding and subtracting suffices in giving us a manipulation that is more handy. In this case, we see that we can split up the fraction after this manipulation:
$$frac{1}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1 - e^x}{e^x + 1} = frac{e^x + 1}{e^x + 1} + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1} = 1 + frac{-e^x}{e^x + 1}$$
Notice how this might be easier to integrate, namely because of a $u$-substitution of $u = e^x+1$? This manipulation lets us do that!
I'm not sure if there is some sort of underlying intuition, necessarily, beyond trying to find a method which works. Some problems are a matter of trial and error to find something which works.
Sure, sure, in school you may often know ahead of time the method you need to use because you might be covering related material at the time and it's like "well, why would the homework be on something unrelated to the material, so obviously I'm expected to use this method that we're covering." But if a problem faces you out of the blue, say in competition mathematics or in the real world, you have less guidance and so trial and error might be necessary.
Of course, there are other ways to solve this particular integral, as was touched on in two other answers, you need not limit yourself to one method of problem-solving.
It's just a nice little tool to have in your arsenal, one that should be kept in mind because despite its simplicity it is deceptively helpful in some cases. I don't think there's an underlying reason as to why or when it should be used other than "it works," though.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 0:49
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
5,9761936
5,9761936
$begingroup$
Thank you for your very thought out answer! I do also try to manipulate whenever I might see a possibility to do so. For this particular problem I could not recognize any methods of manipulating inorder to help me. I actively try to not limit myself to methods discussed in the chapter, but I could not see how somebody would think of expanding the numerator by $e^x - e^x$.
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:08
1
$begingroup$
I was in competition mathematics. Your note is correct. In fact in school you just solve trivial exercises most of the time. In competition mathematics you have to know all tools from school perfectly but this still does not guarantee you will solve any problem. That's what I loved about it. So it is really about your intuition and problem solving skills and ability to think out of the box. And these I think come 1) either with plain talent or 2) with lots of problem solving and self exploration. I've always wondered what (philosophically speaking) what is the relationship between the two.
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 1:10
$begingroup$
The other key point about this solution is that you have to think two or even three steps (depending on how you count a "step") ahead, not just one. Because once you apply the trick you don't directly get $du$ - instead, you have to first do the cancellation and then apply linearity before you have a $frac{du}{u}$ form. But often this type of thinking is not taught - either you are born with it naturally or have to sweet laddie luckie have the right people to teach you this habit.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:39
$begingroup$
@peter.petrov - do you think that the skill for "competition" maths gives a huge edge in actual usage of maths in more sophisticated disciplines like research or application and this if you (meaning this poster writing this specific comment) didn't develop that to participate in that kind of thing then you are at a tremendous disadvantage that means you should give up or settle?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:44
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer I don't think anyone should give up. If one has interest in math they should play with it no matter what. I don't consider myself too talented in math (meaning I have seen contestants way smarter than me) but so what... Also as I said I am not sure what fraction is the talent and what fraction is the systematic every day work. I don't know if Einstein really really said this but I like this thought: “intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience”...
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 22:37
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Thank you for your very thought out answer! I do also try to manipulate whenever I might see a possibility to do so. For this particular problem I could not recognize any methods of manipulating inorder to help me. I actively try to not limit myself to methods discussed in the chapter, but I could not see how somebody would think of expanding the numerator by $e^x - e^x$.
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:08
1
$begingroup$
I was in competition mathematics. Your note is correct. In fact in school you just solve trivial exercises most of the time. In competition mathematics you have to know all tools from school perfectly but this still does not guarantee you will solve any problem. That's what I loved about it. So it is really about your intuition and problem solving skills and ability to think out of the box. And these I think come 1) either with plain talent or 2) with lots of problem solving and self exploration. I've always wondered what (philosophically speaking) what is the relationship between the two.
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 1:10
$begingroup$
The other key point about this solution is that you have to think two or even three steps (depending on how you count a "step") ahead, not just one. Because once you apply the trick you don't directly get $du$ - instead, you have to first do the cancellation and then apply linearity before you have a $frac{du}{u}$ form. But often this type of thinking is not taught - either you are born with it naturally or have to sweet laddie luckie have the right people to teach you this habit.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:39
$begingroup$
@peter.petrov - do you think that the skill for "competition" maths gives a huge edge in actual usage of maths in more sophisticated disciplines like research or application and this if you (meaning this poster writing this specific comment) didn't develop that to participate in that kind of thing then you are at a tremendous disadvantage that means you should give up or settle?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:44
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer I don't think anyone should give up. If one has interest in math they should play with it no matter what. I don't consider myself too talented in math (meaning I have seen contestants way smarter than me) but so what... Also as I said I am not sure what fraction is the talent and what fraction is the systematic every day work. I don't know if Einstein really really said this but I like this thought: “intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience”...
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 22:37
$begingroup$
Thank you for your very thought out answer! I do also try to manipulate whenever I might see a possibility to do so. For this particular problem I could not recognize any methods of manipulating inorder to help me. I actively try to not limit myself to methods discussed in the chapter, but I could not see how somebody would think of expanding the numerator by $e^x - e^x$.
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:08
$begingroup$
Thank you for your very thought out answer! I do also try to manipulate whenever I might see a possibility to do so. For this particular problem I could not recognize any methods of manipulating inorder to help me. I actively try to not limit myself to methods discussed in the chapter, but I could not see how somebody would think of expanding the numerator by $e^x - e^x$.
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:08
1
1
$begingroup$
I was in competition mathematics. Your note is correct. In fact in school you just solve trivial exercises most of the time. In competition mathematics you have to know all tools from school perfectly but this still does not guarantee you will solve any problem. That's what I loved about it. So it is really about your intuition and problem solving skills and ability to think out of the box. And these I think come 1) either with plain talent or 2) with lots of problem solving and self exploration. I've always wondered what (philosophically speaking) what is the relationship between the two.
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 1:10
$begingroup$
I was in competition mathematics. Your note is correct. In fact in school you just solve trivial exercises most of the time. In competition mathematics you have to know all tools from school perfectly but this still does not guarantee you will solve any problem. That's what I loved about it. So it is really about your intuition and problem solving skills and ability to think out of the box. And these I think come 1) either with plain talent or 2) with lots of problem solving and self exploration. I've always wondered what (philosophically speaking) what is the relationship between the two.
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 1:10
$begingroup$
The other key point about this solution is that you have to think two or even three steps (depending on how you count a "step") ahead, not just one. Because once you apply the trick you don't directly get $du$ - instead, you have to first do the cancellation and then apply linearity before you have a $frac{du}{u}$ form. But often this type of thinking is not taught - either you are born with it naturally or have to sweet laddie luckie have the right people to teach you this habit.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:39
$begingroup$
The other key point about this solution is that you have to think two or even three steps (depending on how you count a "step") ahead, not just one. Because once you apply the trick you don't directly get $du$ - instead, you have to first do the cancellation and then apply linearity before you have a $frac{du}{u}$ form. But often this type of thinking is not taught - either you are born with it naturally or have to sweet laddie luckie have the right people to teach you this habit.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:39
$begingroup$
@peter.petrov - do you think that the skill for "competition" maths gives a huge edge in actual usage of maths in more sophisticated disciplines like research or application and this if you (meaning this poster writing this specific comment) didn't develop that to participate in that kind of thing then you are at a tremendous disadvantage that means you should give up or settle?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:44
$begingroup$
@peter.petrov - do you think that the skill for "competition" maths gives a huge edge in actual usage of maths in more sophisticated disciplines like research or application and this if you (meaning this poster writing this specific comment) didn't develop that to participate in that kind of thing then you are at a tremendous disadvantage that means you should give up or settle?
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 26 '18 at 6:44
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer I don't think anyone should give up. If one has interest in math they should play with it no matter what. I don't consider myself too talented in math (meaning I have seen contestants way smarter than me) but so what... Also as I said I am not sure what fraction is the talent and what fraction is the systematic every day work. I don't know if Einstein really really said this but I like this thought: “intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience”...
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 22:37
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer I don't think anyone should give up. If one has interest in math they should play with it no matter what. I don't consider myself too talented in math (meaning I have seen contestants way smarter than me) but so what... Also as I said I am not sure what fraction is the talent and what fraction is the systematic every day work. I don't know if Einstein really really said this but I like this thought: “intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience”...
$endgroup$
– peter.petrov
Dec 26 '18 at 22:37
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Hint:
$$frac1{e^x+1}=frac{e^{-x}}{1+e^{-x}}.$$
And since the derivative of $1+e^{-x}$ is $-e^{-x}$, this suggests a useful substitution.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
NO need of substitution: it is already of the form $$;-intfrac{f'}f ,dx=log|f|+C;$$
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 0:58
$begingroup$
$-log|f|;$ , of course.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 1:07
$begingroup$
Cheers @Alejandro . So ideally when solving similar problems you want to find a common factor?
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:13
$begingroup$
@DonAntonio The substitution suggested is $f=1+e^{-x}$
$endgroup$
– Shubham Johri
Dec 26 '18 at 5:57
$begingroup$
@ShubhamJohri I know. Still it isn't needed as if one recognizes the integrand as $;frac{f'}f;$ , then the integral is immediate.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 7:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint:
$$frac1{e^x+1}=frac{e^{-x}}{1+e^{-x}}.$$
And since the derivative of $1+e^{-x}$ is $-e^{-x}$, this suggests a useful substitution.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
NO need of substitution: it is already of the form $$;-intfrac{f'}f ,dx=log|f|+C;$$
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 0:58
$begingroup$
$-log|f|;$ , of course.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 1:07
$begingroup$
Cheers @Alejandro . So ideally when solving similar problems you want to find a common factor?
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:13
$begingroup$
@DonAntonio The substitution suggested is $f=1+e^{-x}$
$endgroup$
– Shubham Johri
Dec 26 '18 at 5:57
$begingroup$
@ShubhamJohri I know. Still it isn't needed as if one recognizes the integrand as $;frac{f'}f;$ , then the integral is immediate.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 7:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint:
$$frac1{e^x+1}=frac{e^{-x}}{1+e^{-x}}.$$
And since the derivative of $1+e^{-x}$ is $-e^{-x}$, this suggests a useful substitution.
$endgroup$
Hint:
$$frac1{e^x+1}=frac{e^{-x}}{1+e^{-x}}.$$
And since the derivative of $1+e^{-x}$ is $-e^{-x}$, this suggests a useful substitution.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 0:39
Alejandro Nasif SalumAlejandro Nasif Salum
4,765118
4,765118
$begingroup$
NO need of substitution: it is already of the form $$;-intfrac{f'}f ,dx=log|f|+C;$$
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 0:58
$begingroup$
$-log|f|;$ , of course.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 1:07
$begingroup$
Cheers @Alejandro . So ideally when solving similar problems you want to find a common factor?
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:13
$begingroup$
@DonAntonio The substitution suggested is $f=1+e^{-x}$
$endgroup$
– Shubham Johri
Dec 26 '18 at 5:57
$begingroup$
@ShubhamJohri I know. Still it isn't needed as if one recognizes the integrand as $;frac{f'}f;$ , then the integral is immediate.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 7:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
NO need of substitution: it is already of the form $$;-intfrac{f'}f ,dx=log|f|+C;$$
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 0:58
$begingroup$
$-log|f|;$ , of course.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 1:07
$begingroup$
Cheers @Alejandro . So ideally when solving similar problems you want to find a common factor?
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:13
$begingroup$
@DonAntonio The substitution suggested is $f=1+e^{-x}$
$endgroup$
– Shubham Johri
Dec 26 '18 at 5:57
$begingroup$
@ShubhamJohri I know. Still it isn't needed as if one recognizes the integrand as $;frac{f'}f;$ , then the integral is immediate.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 7:50
$begingroup$
NO need of substitution: it is already of the form $$;-intfrac{f'}f ,dx=log|f|+C;$$
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 0:58
$begingroup$
NO need of substitution: it is already of the form $$;-intfrac{f'}f ,dx=log|f|+C;$$
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 0:58
$begingroup$
$-log|f|;$ , of course.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 1:07
$begingroup$
$-log|f|;$ , of course.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 1:07
$begingroup$
Cheers @Alejandro . So ideally when solving similar problems you want to find a common factor?
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:13
$begingroup$
Cheers @Alejandro . So ideally when solving similar problems you want to find a common factor?
$endgroup$
– oxodo
Dec 26 '18 at 1:13
$begingroup$
@DonAntonio The substitution suggested is $f=1+e^{-x}$
$endgroup$
– Shubham Johri
Dec 26 '18 at 5:57
$begingroup$
@DonAntonio The substitution suggested is $f=1+e^{-x}$
$endgroup$
– Shubham Johri
Dec 26 '18 at 5:57
$begingroup$
@ShubhamJohri I know. Still it isn't needed as if one recognizes the integrand as $;frac{f'}f;$ , then the integral is immediate.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 7:50
$begingroup$
@ShubhamJohri I know. Still it isn't needed as if one recognizes the integrand as $;frac{f'}f;$ , then the integral is immediate.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 26 '18 at 7:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can still substitute $u=e^x, frac{du}{u} = dx$, and solve the integral. It's a perfectly valid choice for a substitution.
$$int frac{1}{e^x+1}dx = int frac{1}{(u+1)u}du $$
You proceed by fractional decomposition of $frac{1}{(u+1)u}$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can still substitute $u=e^x, frac{du}{u} = dx$, and solve the integral. It's a perfectly valid choice for a substitution.
$$int frac{1}{e^x+1}dx = int frac{1}{(u+1)u}du $$
You proceed by fractional decomposition of $frac{1}{(u+1)u}$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can still substitute $u=e^x, frac{du}{u} = dx$, and solve the integral. It's a perfectly valid choice for a substitution.
$$int frac{1}{e^x+1}dx = int frac{1}{(u+1)u}du $$
You proceed by fractional decomposition of $frac{1}{(u+1)u}$.
$endgroup$
You can still substitute $u=e^x, frac{du}{u} = dx$, and solve the integral. It's a perfectly valid choice for a substitution.
$$int frac{1}{e^x+1}dx = int frac{1}{(u+1)u}du $$
You proceed by fractional decomposition of $frac{1}{(u+1)u}$.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 0:42
JakobianJakobian
2,605721
2,605721
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now that you have a link to the question math.stackexchange.com/questions/770114/…, you may see from its answers that nothing compels anyone to change $1$ to $e^x + 1 - e^x.$ It is merely one of several different techniques that could be used.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jan 8 at 14:39