integral of x^n

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg130575] integral of x^n
• From: Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
• Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:03:24 -0400 (EDT)
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-newout@smc.vnet.net
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-newsend@smc.vnet.net
• References: <20130420094229.B63996A64@smc.vnet.net> <20130421091626.26FB96AC3@smc.vnet.net> <kl2nvm\$2di\$1@smc.vnet.net>

```On 4/22/2013 12:13 AM, Alex Krasnov wrote:
> In this case, the results are valid for a=1 in the sense of a limit, as
> Limit[u, a -> 1] and limit(u, a, 1) demonstrate. This is not always the
> case. Example:
>
> In:	f = Integrate[x^n, x]
> Out:	x^(1 + n)/(1 + n)
>
> In:	Limit[f, n -> -1, Direction -> 1]
> Out:	-Infinity
>
> In:	Limit[f, n -> -1, Direction -> -1]
> Out:	Infinity
>
> Alex
>
>

Yes, but an equally valid antiderivative for x^n  is

s = (x^(n+1)-1)/(n+1).

note

Limit[s,n->-1]  is Log[x].

This alternative formula was, I think, pointed out more than once
to Wolfram Inc. probably circa version 2.

There are other issues that come up when using antiderivatives +
the fundamental theorem of integral calculus. Some of these become