Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've run into a strange situation while trying to apply Integration By Parts, and I can't seem to come up with an explanation. I start with the following equation:

$$\int \frac{1}{f} \frac{df}{dx} dx$$

I let:

$$u = \frac{1}{f} \text{ and } dv = \frac{df}{dx} dx$$

Then I find:

$$du = -\frac{1}{f^2} \frac{df}{dx} dx \text{ and } v = f$$

I can then substitute into the usual IBP formula:

$$\int udv = uv - \int v du$$

$$\int \frac{1}{f} \frac{df}{dx} dx = \frac{1}{f} f - \int f \left(-\frac{1}{f^2} \frac{df}{dx}\right) dx$$

$$\int \frac{1}{f} \frac{df}{dx} dx = 1 + \int \frac{1}{f} \frac{df}{dx} dx$$

Then subtracting the integral from both sides, I've now shown that:

$$0 = 1$$

Obviously there must be a problem in my derivation here... What wrong assumption have I made, or what error have I made? I'm baffled.

share|cite|improve this question
There is no mistake, and it does not prove 0 = 1. It proves only that 0 = 1 + $C$ for some constant $C$. An indefinite integral always has a constant of integration to be taken into account. You may have noticed in Calculus 2 that you come up with the exact same kind of result when you integrate by parts the expression $\ln (x+1)$ directly without intermediate $u$-substition vs. doing it with intermediate $u$-substition, as another example. – Joseph Myers May 23 '14 at 5:44
The problem is using antiderivatives (poorly called "indefinite integrals") as if they were integrals. – Martin Argerami May 23 '14 at 5:53
Related. – Git Gud May 23 '14 at 9:01
0 does equal 1 up to an additive constant – Tim Seguine May 23 '14 at 20:48
I'd call on several students, one after another, and demand that they tell me what is $\displaystyle\int\dfrac{dx}{x}$, $\displaystyle\int\dfrac{du}{u}$, $\displaystyle\int\dfrac{dz}{z}$, $\displaystyle\int\dfrac{da}{a}$, and then, as the clincher, I'd ask about $\displaystyle\int\dfrac{d(\text{cabin})}{\text{cabin}}$. Some of them would grin amiably and shout out "log cabin", and they were surprised when I told them that I didn't agree. The right answer (as I learned when I was learning calculus) is "house-boat", "log cabin plus sea". – Awal Garg May 24 '14 at 5:59
up vote 65 down vote accepted

Hint: Constant of integration.

share|cite|improve this answer
About the most straight-to-the-point answer I've ever seen. +1. – Aidan F. Pierce May 23 '14 at 13:28
@AidanF.Pierce Well.. – Soke May 23 '14 at 22:09
Its too much of a hint. – evil999man May 24 '14 at 6:04
@MichaelT Okay, mabye the second-most straight-to-the-point answer I've ever seen. – Aidan F. Pierce May 24 '14 at 13:16
I would have written $C$ to match did – Awal Garg Jun 8 '14 at 17:14

You have correctly derived that $0 = 1$... modulo constants.

Antiderivatives are only well-defined modulo constants*; e.g. both $x$ and $x+1$ are antiderivatives (with respect to $x$) of $1$. The equation you wrote is implicitly only meant to be an equation modulo constants; that is, the two sides of the equation don't have to be equal: they're allowed to differ by a constant.

This is traditionally worked around by adding a "constant of integration" in an ad-hoc manner rather than trying to introduce modular arithmetic. This ad-hoc fix can be tricky to get right in a nontrivial algebraic calculation if you don't fully understand what's going on, as your calculation shows.

When you cancel out the two copies of $\int\frac{1}{f} \frac{df}{dx} \, dx$, that doesn't get rid of the fact that the equation is still only meant to hold modulo constants: you've merely eliminated your mental cue (the presence of an antiderivative) to remind you of that fact.

*: Technically, I should say "locally constant functions in the integration variable" rather than "constants"

share|cite|improve this answer

This line $$\int \frac{1}{f} \frac{df}{dx} dx = \frac{1}{f} f - \int f \left(-\frac{1}{f^2} \frac{df}{dx}\right) dx$$ should be $$\int_a^b \frac{1}{f} \frac{df}{dx} dx = \left[\frac{1}{f} f\right]_a^b - \int_a^b f \left(-\frac{1}{f^2} \frac{df}{dx}\right) dx$$ so $$\int_a^b \frac{1}{f} \frac{df}{dx} dx = \left[1\right]_a^b - \int_a^b f \left(-\frac{1}{f^2} \frac{df}{dx}\right) dx$$ and $\left[1\right]_a^b=0$

share|cite|improve this answer
It appears that he is doing indefinite integration, for which this says nothing about. – DanZimm May 23 '14 at 5:42
Indefinite integration is not integration, as the question shows. – Martin Argerami May 23 '14 at 5:54

As an exercise, look at this proof of $0=1$

Differentiate both sides $wrt $ $x$


Which is true, hence proved.

If you can find the error here, so you can in your above question.

share|cite|improve this answer
This isn't really an accurate analogy; every step of the proof in the OP is a reversible one. – Hurkyl May 24 '14 at 11:50
@Hurkyl Not perfectly accurate but trying to disprove it, he will find the word : arbitrary constant. – evil999man May 24 '14 at 11:51

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.