I admit, I'm a fucking brainlet, but what is the antiderivative of f(x)=1/x? I'm sure that I can find the answer in my textbook or on google, but I thought you guys could need some fuel for your superiority complexes, and I'm therefore asking you.
Antiderivative of x-1?
Chase Martinez
Other urls found in this thread:
lmgtfy.com
twitter.com
Christian Ramirez
are you retarded?
it's log(x) this is literally precalc tier. Every fucking book on calculus has tables for the most common antiderivatives.
Proving it is something more complicated I guess.
Austin Russell
Logan Thompson
It was neither on the table of common derivatives nor in the index, hence I'm asking.
Luis Torres
Kek nice one OP.
I'm starting to recognise your posts now.
Adrian Roberts
it's actually quite easy to prove.
Oliver Rogers
>proving it
>not defining it as such
Carson Lee
>Brainlets thinking log(x) is the antiderivative of 1/x
You are but like children, 1/x is defined on all of R but log(x) is only defined on R+
Jonathan Green
did you just divide by 0
Carson Parker
Did you just assume his autism?
Jordan Foster
my autismy sense was tingling
Henry Murphy
Why don't calc books ever mention a general rule for the antiderivative of a log with base b? I mean, you can easily prove it using parts, but is it really that trivial that they don't even bother to show it?
Robert Thompson
I'm pretty sure it's actually ln(|x|)
David Howard
Trivialist thing to ever exist in mathematics, only grade A retards are incapable of immediately deriving it.
Christian Price
>log(x) is only defined on R+
John Powell
the inverse of e^x, log(x), is defined on all of C except zero
the antiderivative of 1/x, log(|x|), is also defined on all of C except zero
Jacob Parker
1/x = x^-1
add 1 to the exponent gives you x^0, then simply divide by 0 (since dirivatives are limits you're allowed to divide by 0 in this case)
x^0/0 = 1/0 = infinity.
Brayden Richardson
Motherfucker this better be bait
Colton Wilson
I think log(x) is better defined as "the inverse function of exp(x)."
Asher Lopez
>the inverse of e^x
The exponential function as a function [math] \mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C} [/math] is not injective, which means it doesn't have an inverse function.
Landon Phillips
Seems like a very clever brainlet Honeypot. Well done OP
Angel Anderson
>Proving it is something more complicated I guess.
not really.
Christian Hughes
It is not log (x) it is ln (|x|) you god damn monkeys
Charles Ward
>Proving it is something more complicated I guess.
Use the chain rule to prove what the derivative of the inverse of a function is, use the fact that you know the derivative of e^x, and call it done.
David Gonzalez
>log(x) is only defined on R+
get a load of this guy
also thats why antiderivative of 1/x is log|x|
Ryder Martin
with change of base formula the base just becomes a constant so i dont see why it needs to be shown
Justin Lopez
log|x|
Eli Kelly
>log(x) is only defined on R+
Are you preten-
>1/x is defined on all of R