4.2.11 · D4Calculus II — Integration

Exercises — Improper integrals — Type I (infinite limits), Type II (discontinuous integrand)

2,100 words10 min readBack to topic
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.
Figure — Improper integrals — Type I (infinite limits), Type II (discontinuous integrand)

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)