4.2.2 · D5Calculus II — Integration

Question bank — Basic integration rules — power, trig, exponential, log

1,610 words7 min readBack to topic

The figure above shows the hole at : the power-rule denominator passes through zero, so the formula blows up exactly where has to take over.


True or false — justify

holds for every real number .
False — it fails at , where and you'd divide by zero; that single hole is filled by .
Two antiderivatives of the same function must be identical.
False — they can differ by any constant, since differentiation flattens constants to ; e.g. and both have derivative .
.
False — it is ; check by differentiating: , whereas (wrong sign).
because is unchanged by integration.
True — is the fixed point of differentiation (), so read backwards it is also unchanged by integration.
for any base .
False — since , that answer is times too big; the correct integral is (only leaves it unchanged, because ).
You may never omit the , not even in the middle of a calculation.
False (overstated) — in intermediate steps you may drop for brevity, provided you restore it in the final answer; what you must never do is present a finished indefinite integral without it, since the answer is an entire family of functions, not one.
is the fully correct answer.
False (incomplete) — is undefined for but exists there; the correct answer is valid for all .
Linearity lets you write .
False — linearity comes from the derivative sum rule , which reverses cleanly; but the derivative product rule has an extra cross-term, so it does not reverse into a product of integrals — products need Integration by parts or Integration by substitution.
.
True — treat as ; the power rule gives , or just note that .

Spot the error

"."
Wrong denominator — you divide by the new power , not the old one; the answer is .
"."
That's confusing an integral with a derivative; , so .
"."
The power rule was misapplied to an exponential — here is the exponent, not the base, so the power rule doesn't apply at all; use .
"."
Invalid — you cannot integrate a product term-by-term as a product; first multiply out to , then integrate to get .
"."
Sign error — the minus belongs to the sine integral, not the cosine one; since .
"."
Illegal division by zero — this is exactly the case where the power rule breaks; pull out the and use the log rule: .
"For , , and also ."
The first is correct — writing it as an exponent, , so it equals on the domain where lives; but the second divides by the old power instead of the new one , so it's wrong (the correct denominator is , giving ).

Why questions

Why must a appear on every indefinite integral, but not on a definite integral?
Indefinite integrals name a whole family (the lost constant is unknown); in a definite integral you evaluate an antiderivative at the endpoints, and the constant cancels in , so it never appears — see Definite integrals & FTC.
Why does the power rule "raise then divide" rather than "lower then multiply"?
Because differentiation lowers the power and multiplies by it; integration reverses that, so we raise the power and divide by the new power to cancel the factor differentiation would produce.
Why is singled out among all exponentials ?
Because , the correction factor becomes , so integrates to itself; every other base carries a — this is what makes the "natural" base, see Natural log and exponential functions.
Why does a minus sign appear in but not in ?
Reading the derivatives backwards: , so to get you need ; whereas needs no adjustment.
Why is (with absolute value) needed instead of just ?
Because is defined for negative too, but is not; the absolute value extends the antiderivative to all while keeping (see the two-branch picture at the top).
Why is there no product or quotient rule for integration?
Because the product rule for derivatives, , has a sum of two terms; reversing it can't be undone in one clean formula — it turns into Integration by parts, and reversing chain-rule products turns into Integration by substitution; neither is as tidy as linearity.
Why do we always verify an integral by differentiating rather than re-integrating?
Differentiation is deterministic and unique, so it's a clean check; if equals the integrand, the answer is correct up to the unavoidable .

Edge cases

What is , and does the power rule apply?
Yes — , and , so ; the rule is safe because we're not dividing by zero.
What happens to the power rule exactly at , and what replaces it?
The denominator becomes , so the formula is undefined; nature patches the hole with an entirely different function, (this is the blow-up shown in the second figure).
Is valid?
No — , so this divides by zero; but for all , so just integrate the constant: .
At , is meaningful?
No — isn't defined at , so the antiderivative is only valid on intervals not containing ; you cannot integrate "across" the origin here.
Can two antiderivatives on disconnected domains differ by different constants on each piece?
Yes — since lives on two separate intervals ( and ) with a gap at , the true antiderivative is for and for , with independent constants; writing a single "" quietly assumes the same shift on both branches, which is the mild abuse (see the two-branch picture at the top).
What is ?
— the zero function is the derivative of any constant, so its antiderivative is just an arbitrary constant with no term.

Connections