Exercises — Improper integrals — Type I (infinite limits), Type II (discontinuous integrand)
Recall One-glance reminder of the two master rules
"Big at infinity, small at zero." diverges in both cases.
Level 1 — Recognition
Goal: name the type and locate the "bad point" — before computing anything.
Problem 1.1
Classify each as proper, Type I, Type II, or both, and name the bad point(s):
Recall Solution 1.1
The test: does the integrand blow up anywhere on the closed interval (Type II), and/or is a limit infinite (Type I)?
- (a) blows up at , but . Interval is finite. → Proper (ordinary integral, nothing improper).
- (b) Upper limit is ; integrand fine on . → Type I, bad point at .
- (c) as , and is the right endpoint of . → Type II, bad point .
- (d) Upper limit and as (left endpoint). → Both (Type I at , Type II at ). Must split, e.g. .
Problem 1.2
Is improper? If so, why, and where?
Recall Solution 1.2
and equals only at . So as . Since is interior to , this is a Type II integral with an interior singularity at . You must split at and check both halves. (Skipping the split is the classic error — see below.)
Level 2 — Application
Goal: run the full machine — replace bad point with , integrate, take the limit.
Problem 2.1
Evaluate .
Recall Solution 2.1
Type I. Replace by : As , , so the value is . Converges.
Problem 2.2
Evaluate .
Recall Solution 2.2
Type I, → expect convergence. Directly: As , , giving . (Cross-check with the formula ✓.)
Problem 2.3
Evaluate .
Recall Solution 2.3
The integrand as (right endpoint). Type II. Creep up with : Let , . Antiderivative: carefully — . As , , so value . Converges.
Problem 2.4
Evaluate .
Recall Solution 2.4
as : Type II at the left end. Creep with . Antiderivative (by parts): . As : , and (the crushes the slow ; see Limits at Infinity). So value . Converges. (A negative answer is fine here — on , so the "area" is genuinely below the axis.)
Level 3 — Analysis
Goal: decide convergence when a clean antiderivative is hopeless — use comparison.
Problem 3.1
Does converge? Find its exact value if so.
Recall Solution 3.1
Two routes. Route A (comparison, quick verdict): for , , so , and converges (). By the Comparison Test for Integrals, the smaller non-negative integral converges. Route B (exact value): partial fractions . As , so . Value . So .
Problem 3.2
Determine (converge/diverge) using comparison, without integrating: .
Recall Solution 3.2
Since , the numerator satisfies . Thus But diverges (). A non-negative function larger than a divergent one must also diverge (its area is even bigger). → Diverges. Direction matters: to prove divergence you bound below by something divergent; to prove convergence you bound above by something convergent.
Problem 3.3
Does converge?
Recall Solution 3.3
Bad point at (denominator ): Type II. Near , is negligible next to , so , giving converges (, value ). By comparison, the smaller non-negative integral converges.
Level 4 — Synthesis
Goal: combine splitting, multiple bad points, and both types in one problem.
Problem 4.1
Evaluate .
Recall Solution 4.1
Both limits infinite → split at a convenient and check each half. Antiderivative: . Both halves converge, so the whole integral converges to .
Problem 4.2
Evaluate (bad at both ends).
Recall Solution 4.2
Type II at () and Type I at . Split at : . Substitution unifies both. Let , , . Then As runs , runs , and runs : Both endpoint behaviours are tame under the substitution → converges cleanly.
Problem 4.3
For which real does converge?
Recall Solution 4.3
This is a trap in disguise. Split at : .
- converges (Type II rule).
- converges (Type I rule). These two conditions are mutually exclusive — no single satisfies both. Therefore diverges for every real . The picture below shows why: whichever end you tame, the other end blows up.

Level 5 — Mastery
Goal: subtle limits, the Cauchy-principal-value trap, and connections to named functions.
Problem 5.1
Does converge? What does the "symmetric limit" give, and why is that misleading?
Recall Solution 5.1
Split at . The right half diverges. Since one piece diverges, the whole integral diverges — full stop. The tempting "symmetric limit" . This clean is the Cauchy principal value, not convergence: it only works because the growing negative and positive areas are forced to cancel at the same rate. Genuine convergence demands each half settle on its own. Answer: diverges (PV is a different, weaker notion).
Problem 5.2
Evaluate and connect it to the Gamma Function.
Recall Solution 5.2
Type I. Integrate by parts, : . As , (exponential beats the linear factor). Value . Connection: the Gamma Function is , and . Here , so this is ✓. This same integral also gives the mean of the exponential distribution with rate .
Problem 5.3
Evaluate for a constant , and state what happens when . (This is a Laplace Transform in miniature.)
Recall Solution 5.3
- If : as , value . Converges.
- If : integrand is , . Diverges.
- If : exponent grows, . Diverges. So only for — this is exactly , the Laplace Transform of the constant function , valid precisely on its region of convergence.
Recall Final self-check (say the verdict out loud)
::: converges to () ::: converges to ::: converges to ::: diverges for all real ::: equals for , diverges for ::: diverges (PV is not convergence)