Can you compute $int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$ more precisely than $1.20206$ and do a comparision with $zeta(3)$?Double integral involving zeta function: $int_0^infty frac1-12y^2(1+4y^2)^3int_1/2^inftylog|zeta(x+iy)|~dx ~dy.$Integral $int_0^1fraclog(x)log^2(1-x)log^2(1+x)xmathrm dx$Can be justified this $zeta(3)=int_0^1frac1xsum_n=0^inftyfracx^(n+1)^3/2(n+1)^3/2dx$?On the change $u=x^1+frac1p_n$ in $log zeta(s)=sint_0^inftyfracpi(x)x(x^s-1)dx$, where $p_n$ is the nth prime numberIs there a simple proof for $int_1^inftyfrac2x^2log^2 x(x^2-1)^2dx=frac14(7zeta(3)+pi^2)$?Evaluate $int_0^1 fraclog(1-z)log(1-z^3)z^2dz$Value of the integral $int_0^2pi log|re^it-zeta| dt$Calculate an approximation of $int_0^1int_0^1fraclog(xy)xy-1+log(xy)dxdy$On $int_0^1fraclog^2(x)1+x^3dx$ and $zeta(3)$What's about $-int_0^1fraclog(1+x^10)log xxdx$?

How do I allocate more memory to an app on Sheepshaver running Mac OS 9?

All superlinear runtime algorithms are asymptotically equivalent to convex function?

Why does sound not move through a wall?

Krull dimension of the ring of global sections

How to Practice After Stream Entry as Opposed to Before?

Has the Hulk always been able to talk?

How to remap repeating commands i.e. <number><command>?

What Kind of Wooden Beam is this

Can full drive backup be used instead of MSSQL database backup?

How to pass hash as password to ssh server

Endgame puzzle: How to avoid stalemate and win?

What was the first story to feature the plot "the monsters were human all along"?

When did England stop being a Papal fief?

Is the book wrong about the Nyquist Sampling Criterion?

Is 'contemporary' ambiguous and if so is there a better word?

What happens if I accidentally leave an app running and click "Install Now" in Software Updater?

Has the United States ever had a non-Christian President?

Make me a minimum magic sum

Hostile Divisor Numbers

Gerrymandering Puzzle - Rig the Election

Is there a word that describes the unjustified use of a more complex word?

How did the Apollo guidance computer handle parity bit errors?

Motion-trail-like lines

Why are oscilloscope input impedances so low?



Can you compute $int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$ more precisely than $1.20206$ and do a comparision with $zeta(3)$?


Double integral involving zeta function: $int_0^infty frac1-12y^2(1+4y^2)^3int_1/2^inftylog|zeta(x+iy)|~dx ~dy.$Integral $int_0^1fraclog(x)log^2(1-x)log^2(1+x)xmathrm dx$Can be justified this $zeta(3)=int_0^1frac1xsum_n=0^inftyfracx^(n+1)^3/2(n+1)^3/2dx$?On the change $u=x^1+frac1p_n$ in $log zeta(s)=sint_0^inftyfracpi(x)x(x^s-1)dx$, where $p_n$ is the nth prime numberIs there a simple proof for $int_1^inftyfrac2x^2log^2 x(x^2-1)^2dx=frac14(7zeta(3)+pi^2)$?Evaluate $int_0^1 fraclog(1-z)log(1-z^3)z^2dz$Value of the integral $int_0^2pi log|re^it-zeta| dt$Calculate an approximation of $int_0^1int_0^1fraclog(xy)xy-1+log(xy)dxdy$On $int_0^1fraclog^2(x)1+x^3dx$ and $zeta(3)$What's about $-int_0^1fraclog(1+x^10)log xxdx$?













5












$begingroup$


I know from Wolfram Alpha that $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=1.20206$$ and in the other hand, too from this online tool that
$$intfraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=mathrmLi_3(x)-mathrmLi_2(x)log(x)+constant.$$




Question. I would like made a comparision, and need obtain $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx,$$
more precisely than $1.20206$. I believe that could be $zeta(3)$, but now I don't sure, and I don't know if holding this claim could be deduce easily.



Can you compute $int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$ more precisely than $1.20206$ to discard that this value is $zeta(3)$, Apéry constant, or claim that the equality $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=zeta(3)$$ holds and is known/easily deduced (perhaps from some of its known formulas involving integrals)?




This definite integral was computed as a summand, when I made some changes of variable in Beuker's integral (see [1]), and now i don't know if too I could be wrong in my computations.



I've searched in this site about this integral $intfraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$, and in Wikipedia about a possible identity between $zeta(3)$ and particular values of logarithmic integrals $mathrmLi_2(x)$ and $mathrmLi_3(x)$.



References:



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ap%C3%A9ry%27s_constant






reference-request definite-integrals logarithms improper-integrals online-resources







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    My changes from Beukers integral (see Refereces) to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense, and there are no mistakes. Too I am assuming that this way is know. Very thanks much all users.
    $endgroup$
    – user243301
    Dec 18 '15 at 18:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Did you try expanding $ln(1-x)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Apr 26 at 19:37










  • $begingroup$
    Taylor series ... expand $ln(1-x)$ in terms of powers of $x$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Apr 26 at 19:41










  • $begingroup$
    Seems like taylor series then by parts is the best way forward here
    $endgroup$
    – George Dewhirst
    Apr 26 at 20:07















5












$begingroup$


I know from Wolfram Alpha that $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=1.20206$$ and in the other hand, too from this online tool that
$$intfraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=mathrmLi_3(x)-mathrmLi_2(x)log(x)+constant.$$




Question. I would like made a comparision, and need obtain $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx,$$
more precisely than $1.20206$. I believe that could be $zeta(3)$, but now I don't sure, and I don't know if holding this claim could be deduce easily.



Can you compute $int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$ more precisely than $1.20206$ to discard that this value is $zeta(3)$, Apéry constant, or claim that the equality $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=zeta(3)$$ holds and is known/easily deduced (perhaps from some of its known formulas involving integrals)?




This definite integral was computed as a summand, when I made some changes of variable in Beuker's integral (see [1]), and now i don't know if too I could be wrong in my computations.



I've searched in this site about this integral $intfraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$, and in Wikipedia about a possible identity between $zeta(3)$ and particular values of logarithmic integrals $mathrmLi_2(x)$ and $mathrmLi_3(x)$.



References:



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ap%C3%A9ry%27s_constant






reference-request definite-integrals logarithms improper-integrals online-resources







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    My changes from Beukers integral (see Refereces) to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense, and there are no mistakes. Too I am assuming that this way is know. Very thanks much all users.
    $endgroup$
    – user243301
    Dec 18 '15 at 18:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Did you try expanding $ln(1-x)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Apr 26 at 19:37










  • $begingroup$
    Taylor series ... expand $ln(1-x)$ in terms of powers of $x$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Apr 26 at 19:41










  • $begingroup$
    Seems like taylor series then by parts is the best way forward here
    $endgroup$
    – George Dewhirst
    Apr 26 at 20:07













5












5








5


6



$begingroup$


I know from Wolfram Alpha that $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=1.20206$$ and in the other hand, too from this online tool that
$$intfraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=mathrmLi_3(x)-mathrmLi_2(x)log(x)+constant.$$




Question. I would like made a comparision, and need obtain $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx,$$
more precisely than $1.20206$. I believe that could be $zeta(3)$, but now I don't sure, and I don't know if holding this claim could be deduce easily.



Can you compute $int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$ more precisely than $1.20206$ to discard that this value is $zeta(3)$, Apéry constant, or claim that the equality $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=zeta(3)$$ holds and is known/easily deduced (perhaps from some of its known formulas involving integrals)?




This definite integral was computed as a summand, when I made some changes of variable in Beuker's integral (see [1]), and now i don't know if too I could be wrong in my computations.



I've searched in this site about this integral $intfraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$, and in Wikipedia about a possible identity between $zeta(3)$ and particular values of logarithmic integrals $mathrmLi_2(x)$ and $mathrmLi_3(x)$.



References:



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ap%C3%A9ry%27s_constant






reference-request definite-integrals logarithms improper-integrals online-resources







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I know from Wolfram Alpha that $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=1.20206$$ and in the other hand, too from this online tool that
$$intfraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=mathrmLi_3(x)-mathrmLi_2(x)log(x)+constant.$$




Question. I would like made a comparision, and need obtain $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx,$$
more precisely than $1.20206$. I believe that could be $zeta(3)$, but now I don't sure, and I don't know if holding this claim could be deduce easily.



Can you compute $int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$ more precisely than $1.20206$ to discard that this value is $zeta(3)$, Apéry constant, or claim that the equality $$int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx=zeta(3)$$ holds and is known/easily deduced (perhaps from some of its known formulas involving integrals)?




This definite integral was computed as a summand, when I made some changes of variable in Beuker's integral (see [1]), and now i don't know if too I could be wrong in my computations.



I've searched in this site about this integral $intfraclog(x)log(1-x)xdx$, and in Wikipedia about a possible identity between $zeta(3)$ and particular values of logarithmic integrals $mathrmLi_2(x)$ and $mathrmLi_3(x)$.



References:



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ap%C3%A9ry%27s_constant






reference-request definite-integrals logarithms improper-integrals online-resources




reference-request definite-integrals logarithms improper-integrals online-resources






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 25 '16 at 8:37









wythagoras

21.7k446104




21.7k446104










asked Dec 18 '15 at 18:21







user243301


















  • $begingroup$
    My changes from Beukers integral (see Refereces) to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense, and there are no mistakes. Too I am assuming that this way is know. Very thanks much all users.
    $endgroup$
    – user243301
    Dec 18 '15 at 18:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Did you try expanding $ln(1-x)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Apr 26 at 19:37










  • $begingroup$
    Taylor series ... expand $ln(1-x)$ in terms of powers of $x$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Apr 26 at 19:41










  • $begingroup$
    Seems like taylor series then by parts is the best way forward here
    $endgroup$
    – George Dewhirst
    Apr 26 at 20:07
















  • $begingroup$
    My changes from Beukers integral (see Refereces) to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense, and there are no mistakes. Too I am assuming that this way is know. Very thanks much all users.
    $endgroup$
    – user243301
    Dec 18 '15 at 18:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Did you try expanding $ln(1-x)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Apr 26 at 19:37










  • $begingroup$
    Taylor series ... expand $ln(1-x)$ in terms of powers of $x$.
    $endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Apr 26 at 19:41










  • $begingroup$
    Seems like taylor series then by parts is the best way forward here
    $endgroup$
    – George Dewhirst
    Apr 26 at 20:07















$begingroup$
My changes from Beukers integral (see Refereces) to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense, and there are no mistakes. Too I am assuming that this way is know. Very thanks much all users.
$endgroup$
– user243301
Dec 18 '15 at 18:55




$begingroup$
My changes from Beukers integral (see Refereces) to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense, and there are no mistakes. Too I am assuming that this way is know. Very thanks much all users.
$endgroup$
– user243301
Dec 18 '15 at 18:55




1




1




$begingroup$
Did you try expanding $ln(1-x)$?
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Apr 26 at 19:37




$begingroup$
Did you try expanding $ln(1-x)$?
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Apr 26 at 19:37












$begingroup$
Taylor series ... expand $ln(1-x)$ in terms of powers of $x$.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Apr 26 at 19:41




$begingroup$
Taylor series ... expand $ln(1-x)$ in terms of powers of $x$.
$endgroup$
– GEdgar
Apr 26 at 19:41












$begingroup$
Seems like taylor series then by parts is the best way forward here
$endgroup$
– George Dewhirst
Apr 26 at 20:07




$begingroup$
Seems like taylor series then by parts is the best way forward here
$endgroup$
– George Dewhirst
Apr 26 at 20:07










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

$$operatornameLi_s(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^s = z + z^2 over 2^s + z^3 over 3^s + cdots ,.$$



Therefore, since $log(1)=0$, we have:



$$operatornameLi_3(1) = sum_k=1^infty 1 over k^3 = zeta(3)$$



$$operatornameLi_3(1)-log(1)operatornameLi_2(1) = zeta(3)$$



It remains to show that $$lim_xto0 operatornameLi_3(x)-log(x)operatornameLi_2(x)=0$$



Note that if $z<1$,



$$operatornameLi_2(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^2 = z + z^2 over 2^2 + z^3 over 3^2 + cdots \< z + z over 2^2 + z over 2^2+ z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 8^2+cdots leq zsum_k=0^infty 1 over 2^k = 2z$$



Since $log(z)<z$, for $z>1$, we also have $log(z^2)<2z$ thus $log(x)<2sqrtx$. Thus $log(frac1x)>-2sqrtx$, thus $log(u)>-2sqrtfrac1u$, thus $0>log(u)operatornameLi_2(u)>-2sqrtu$.



We may use the Squeeze Theorem to finish the result.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Then I understand is a bad question, since is easy to compute the limit (I will try it) too I will try don't make more bad questions. Very thanks much @wythagoras. Now I don't know how comute the limit, but I will try it.
    $endgroup$
    – user243301
    Dec 18 '15 at 18:33











  • $begingroup$
    Very thanks for details @wythagoras
    $endgroup$
    – user243301
    Dec 18 '15 at 18:43


















9












$begingroup$

There is a variety of possibilities how to show that this integral indeed equals $zeta(3)$, i.e. Apéry's Constant. I would like to show some of them



I: Taylor Series Expansion of $log(1-x)$



As it was first suggested within the comments (and done by FDP) we may expand the $log(1-x)$ term as Taylor Series. Specifically, by using the MacLaurin Series of the aforementioned logarithm we obtain



beginalign*
int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=int_0^1fraclog(x)xleft[-sum_n=1^inftyfracx^nnright]mathrm dx\
&=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nint_0^1x^n-1log(x)mathrm dx\
&=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nleft[-frac1n^2right]\
&=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
&=zeta(3)
endalign*



This might be the most straightforward approach possible.



II: Integration By Parts



Choosing $u=log(1-x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(x)x$ we can apply Integration By Parts which gives



beginalign*
int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)x&=underbraceleft[log(1-x)fraclog^2(x)2right]_0^1_to0+frac12int_0^1fraclog^2(x)1-xmathrm dx\
&=frac12int_0^1log^2(x)left[sum_n=0^infty x^nright]mathrm dx\
&=frac12sum_n=0^inftyint_0^1x^nlog^2(x)mathrm dx\
&=frac12sum_n=0^inftyleft[frac2(n+1)^3right]\
&=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
&=zeta(3)
endalign*



Again, we utilized a series expansion, this time the one of the geometric series.



III: Integral Representation of the Zeta Function



To use the Integral Representation of the Zeta Function here we need to reshape the integral a little bit. Starting with substitution $log(x)mapsto -x$ followed by Integration By Parts again we find



beginalign*
int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=-int_infty^0(-x)log(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
&=-int_0^infty xlog(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
&=underbraceleft[fracx^22log(1-e^-x)right]_0^infty_to0+frac12int_0^inftyfracx^21-e^-xe^-xmathrm dx\
&=frac1Gamma(3)int_0^inftyfracx^3-1e^x-1mathrm dx\
&=zeta(3)
endalign*



Overall this is more or less the same as the second approach, but I wanted to bring the integral representation into play. While this approach seems to omit the usage of a series representation we need it actually in order to prove the here used representation for the Zeta Function.



IV: The Trilogarithm $operatornameLi_3(1)$



Similiar to the second approach we may chose Integration By Parts as suitable technique but instead we will apply it with $u=log(x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(1-x)x$ to get



beginalign*
int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=underbraceleft[log(x)(-operatornameLi_2(x))right]_0^1_to0+int_0^1fracoperatornameLi_2(x)xmathrm dx\
&=[operatornameLi_3(x)]_0^1\
&=zeta(3)
endalign*



A quick look at the series representation of the Trilogarithm verifies the last line.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Hey, that's nicely done, but you took them all 😒.
    $endgroup$
    – Number
    Apr 27 at 6:29











  • $begingroup$
    @Zacky Thank you! I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist ^^
    $endgroup$
    – mrtaurho
    Apr 27 at 7:37


















8












$begingroup$

beginalignJ&=int_0^1 fracln(1-x)ln xx dx\
&=-int_0^1 left(sum_n=1^infty fracx^n-1nright)ln x,dx\
&=-sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 x^n-1ln x,dx\
&=sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3\
&=zeta(3)
endalign






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    4












    $begingroup$

    An informal argument: $$log (1-x) = - sum_k=0^infty fracx^k+1k+1, quad |x| < 1.$$ Then $$fraclog x log(1-x)x = -sum_k=0^infty fracx^k log xk+1,$$ and integrating term by term gives $$int_x=0^1 x^k log x , dx = left[ fracx^k+1 log xk+1 right]_x=0^1 - int_x=0^1 fracx^kk+1 , dx = - frac1(k+1)^2.$$ Therefore, $$int_x=0^1 fraclog x log(1-x)x , dx = sum_k=1^infty frac1k^3 = zeta(3).$$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Very thanks much @heropup
      $endgroup$
      – user243301
      Dec 18 '15 at 18:34






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      May I ask what is so informal about this solution?
      $endgroup$
      – GohP.iHan
      Jan 1 '16 at 7:48


















    4












    $begingroup$

    $newcommandbbx[1],bbox[15px,border:1px groove navy]displaystyle#1,
    newcommandbraces[1]leftlbrace,#1,rightrbrace
    newcommandbracks[1]leftlbrack,#1,rightrbrack
    newcommandddmathrmd
    newcommandds[1]displaystyle#1
    newcommandexpo[1],mathrme^#1,
    newcommandicmathrmi
    newcommandmc[1]mathcal#1
    newcommandmrm[1]mathrm#1
    newcommandpars[1]left(,#1,right)
    newcommandpartiald[3][]fracpartial^#1 #2partial #3^#1
    newcommandroot[2][],sqrt[#1],#2,,
    newcommandtotald[3][]fracmathrmd^#1 #2mathrmd #3^#1
    newcommandverts[1]leftvert,#1,rightvert$



    You can add this "weird" answer to the excellent
    $texttt@mrtaurho$ long list:
    beginalign
    &bbox[10px,#ffd]%
    int_0^1lnpars1 - xlnparsx over x,dd x =
    left.partial^2 over partialmu,partialnuint_0^1
    brackspars1 - x^mu - 1x^nu over x,dd x,rightvert_largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
    \[5mm] = &
    partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
    int_0^1x^nu - 1pars1 - x^mu,dd x -
    int_0^1x^nu - 1,dd x
    _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
    \[5mm] = &
    partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
    GammaparsnuGammaparsmu + 1 over
    Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1 over nu
    _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
    \[5mm] = &
    partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubraces1 over nubracks%
    Gammaparsnu + 1Gammaparsmu + 1 over
    Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1
    _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
    \[5mm] = &
    1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
    partialdmubracksGammaparsmu + 1 over
    Gammaparsnu + mu + 1
    _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
    \[5mm] = &
    1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
    bracks-,gamma + Psiparsnu + 1 over
    Gammaparsnu + 1 _ nu = 0^+
    \[5mm] = &
    -,1 over 2,Psi,''pars1 = bbxzetapars3
    endalign






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




















      3












      $begingroup$

      Let $x = e^-y$, we have
      $$int_0^1 fraclog xlog(1-x)x dx
      = int_0^1 frac(-log x)x sum_n=1^infty fracx^nn dx
      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 (-log x) x^n-1 dx\
      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^infty y e^-ny dy
      = sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3
      = zeta(3)
      $$
      Please note that we can switch the order of summation and integration because all the individual terms are non-negative.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Very thanks much @achillehui incredible. I take notes from your solution.
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:37










      • $begingroup$
        @achillehui Are you exploiting Fubini-Tonelli with the counting measure on $mathbbN$ and Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ to justify interchanging the series and integration?
        $endgroup$
        – Mark Viola
        Mar 20 '17 at 2:56










      • $begingroup$
        @Dr.MV the last phrase "because all the individual terms are non-negative" is essentially Tonelli theorem.
        $endgroup$
        – achille hui
        Mar 20 '17 at 4:05










      • $begingroup$
        @achillehui Yes, I know. So, you are exploiting it then?
        $endgroup$
        – Mark Viola
        Mar 20 '17 at 4:19


















      1












      $begingroup$

      The Beta function and Feynman's trick are another way to go:



      $$I=int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)x,dx =left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bint_0^1x^a-1(1-x)^b,dx,right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag1 $$
      hence:
      $$ I = left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bfracGamma(a)Gamma(b+1)Gamma(a+b+1),right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag2 $$
      and by exploiting $Gamma'(z) = Gamma(z)cdotpsi(z)$ we get:
      $$ I = -frac12psi''(2)=sum_ngeq 0frac1(n+1)^3=colorredzeta(3)tag3 $$
      as wanted.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        I try understand your contribution too, now I am saturated. My changes to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense. Very thanks much @JackD'Aurizio.
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:54











      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1581354%2fcan-you-compute-int-01-frac-logx-log1-xxdx-more-precisely-than-1-20%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown
























      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes








      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      1












      $begingroup$

      $$operatornameLi_s(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^s = z + z^2 over 2^s + z^3 over 3^s + cdots ,.$$



      Therefore, since $log(1)=0$, we have:



      $$operatornameLi_3(1) = sum_k=1^infty 1 over k^3 = zeta(3)$$



      $$operatornameLi_3(1)-log(1)operatornameLi_2(1) = zeta(3)$$



      It remains to show that $$lim_xto0 operatornameLi_3(x)-log(x)operatornameLi_2(x)=0$$



      Note that if $z<1$,



      $$operatornameLi_2(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^2 = z + z^2 over 2^2 + z^3 over 3^2 + cdots \< z + z over 2^2 + z over 2^2+ z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 8^2+cdots leq zsum_k=0^infty 1 over 2^k = 2z$$



      Since $log(z)<z$, for $z>1$, we also have $log(z^2)<2z$ thus $log(x)<2sqrtx$. Thus $log(frac1x)>-2sqrtx$, thus $log(u)>-2sqrtfrac1u$, thus $0>log(u)operatornameLi_2(u)>-2sqrtu$.



      We may use the Squeeze Theorem to finish the result.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Then I understand is a bad question, since is easy to compute the limit (I will try it) too I will try don't make more bad questions. Very thanks much @wythagoras. Now I don't know how comute the limit, but I will try it.
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:33











      • $begingroup$
        Very thanks for details @wythagoras
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:43















      1












      $begingroup$

      $$operatornameLi_s(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^s = z + z^2 over 2^s + z^3 over 3^s + cdots ,.$$



      Therefore, since $log(1)=0$, we have:



      $$operatornameLi_3(1) = sum_k=1^infty 1 over k^3 = zeta(3)$$



      $$operatornameLi_3(1)-log(1)operatornameLi_2(1) = zeta(3)$$



      It remains to show that $$lim_xto0 operatornameLi_3(x)-log(x)operatornameLi_2(x)=0$$



      Note that if $z<1$,



      $$operatornameLi_2(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^2 = z + z^2 over 2^2 + z^3 over 3^2 + cdots \< z + z over 2^2 + z over 2^2+ z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 8^2+cdots leq zsum_k=0^infty 1 over 2^k = 2z$$



      Since $log(z)<z$, for $z>1$, we also have $log(z^2)<2z$ thus $log(x)<2sqrtx$. Thus $log(frac1x)>-2sqrtx$, thus $log(u)>-2sqrtfrac1u$, thus $0>log(u)operatornameLi_2(u)>-2sqrtu$.



      We may use the Squeeze Theorem to finish the result.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Then I understand is a bad question, since is easy to compute the limit (I will try it) too I will try don't make more bad questions. Very thanks much @wythagoras. Now I don't know how comute the limit, but I will try it.
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:33











      • $begingroup$
        Very thanks for details @wythagoras
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:43













      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$

      $$operatornameLi_s(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^s = z + z^2 over 2^s + z^3 over 3^s + cdots ,.$$



      Therefore, since $log(1)=0$, we have:



      $$operatornameLi_3(1) = sum_k=1^infty 1 over k^3 = zeta(3)$$



      $$operatornameLi_3(1)-log(1)operatornameLi_2(1) = zeta(3)$$



      It remains to show that $$lim_xto0 operatornameLi_3(x)-log(x)operatornameLi_2(x)=0$$



      Note that if $z<1$,



      $$operatornameLi_2(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^2 = z + z^2 over 2^2 + z^3 over 3^2 + cdots \< z + z over 2^2 + z over 2^2+ z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 8^2+cdots leq zsum_k=0^infty 1 over 2^k = 2z$$



      Since $log(z)<z$, for $z>1$, we also have $log(z^2)<2z$ thus $log(x)<2sqrtx$. Thus $log(frac1x)>-2sqrtx$, thus $log(u)>-2sqrtfrac1u$, thus $0>log(u)operatornameLi_2(u)>-2sqrtu$.



      We may use the Squeeze Theorem to finish the result.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      $$operatornameLi_s(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^s = z + z^2 over 2^s + z^3 over 3^s + cdots ,.$$



      Therefore, since $log(1)=0$, we have:



      $$operatornameLi_3(1) = sum_k=1^infty 1 over k^3 = zeta(3)$$



      $$operatornameLi_3(1)-log(1)operatornameLi_2(1) = zeta(3)$$



      It remains to show that $$lim_xto0 operatornameLi_3(x)-log(x)operatornameLi_2(x)=0$$



      Note that if $z<1$,



      $$operatornameLi_2(z) = sum_k=1^infty z^k over k^2 = z + z^2 over 2^2 + z^3 over 3^2 + cdots \< z + z over 2^2 + z over 2^2+ z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 4^2 + z over 8^2+cdots leq zsum_k=0^infty 1 over 2^k = 2z$$



      Since $log(z)<z$, for $z>1$, we also have $log(z^2)<2z$ thus $log(x)<2sqrtx$. Thus $log(frac1x)>-2sqrtx$, thus $log(u)>-2sqrtfrac1u$, thus $0>log(u)operatornameLi_2(u)>-2sqrtu$.



      We may use the Squeeze Theorem to finish the result.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Dec 18 '15 at 18:42

























      answered Dec 18 '15 at 18:29









      wythagoraswythagoras

      21.7k446104




      21.7k446104











      • $begingroup$
        Then I understand is a bad question, since is easy to compute the limit (I will try it) too I will try don't make more bad questions. Very thanks much @wythagoras. Now I don't know how comute the limit, but I will try it.
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:33











      • $begingroup$
        Very thanks for details @wythagoras
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:43
















      • $begingroup$
        Then I understand is a bad question, since is easy to compute the limit (I will try it) too I will try don't make more bad questions. Very thanks much @wythagoras. Now I don't know how comute the limit, but I will try it.
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:33











      • $begingroup$
        Very thanks for details @wythagoras
        $endgroup$
        – user243301
        Dec 18 '15 at 18:43















      $begingroup$
      Then I understand is a bad question, since is easy to compute the limit (I will try it) too I will try don't make more bad questions. Very thanks much @wythagoras. Now I don't know how comute the limit, but I will try it.
      $endgroup$
      – user243301
      Dec 18 '15 at 18:33





      $begingroup$
      Then I understand is a bad question, since is easy to compute the limit (I will try it) too I will try don't make more bad questions. Very thanks much @wythagoras. Now I don't know how comute the limit, but I will try it.
      $endgroup$
      – user243301
      Dec 18 '15 at 18:33













      $begingroup$
      Very thanks for details @wythagoras
      $endgroup$
      – user243301
      Dec 18 '15 at 18:43




      $begingroup$
      Very thanks for details @wythagoras
      $endgroup$
      – user243301
      Dec 18 '15 at 18:43











      9












      $begingroup$

      There is a variety of possibilities how to show that this integral indeed equals $zeta(3)$, i.e. Apéry's Constant. I would like to show some of them



      I: Taylor Series Expansion of $log(1-x)$



      As it was first suggested within the comments (and done by FDP) we may expand the $log(1-x)$ term as Taylor Series. Specifically, by using the MacLaurin Series of the aforementioned logarithm we obtain



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=int_0^1fraclog(x)xleft[-sum_n=1^inftyfracx^nnright]mathrm dx\
      &=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nint_0^1x^n-1log(x)mathrm dx\
      &=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nleft[-frac1n^2right]\
      &=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      This might be the most straightforward approach possible.



      II: Integration By Parts



      Choosing $u=log(1-x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(x)x$ we can apply Integration By Parts which gives



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)x&=underbraceleft[log(1-x)fraclog^2(x)2right]_0^1_to0+frac12int_0^1fraclog^2(x)1-xmathrm dx\
      &=frac12int_0^1log^2(x)left[sum_n=0^infty x^nright]mathrm dx\
      &=frac12sum_n=0^inftyint_0^1x^nlog^2(x)mathrm dx\
      &=frac12sum_n=0^inftyleft[frac2(n+1)^3right]\
      &=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      Again, we utilized a series expansion, this time the one of the geometric series.



      III: Integral Representation of the Zeta Function



      To use the Integral Representation of the Zeta Function here we need to reshape the integral a little bit. Starting with substitution $log(x)mapsto -x$ followed by Integration By Parts again we find



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=-int_infty^0(-x)log(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
      &=-int_0^infty xlog(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
      &=underbraceleft[fracx^22log(1-e^-x)right]_0^infty_to0+frac12int_0^inftyfracx^21-e^-xe^-xmathrm dx\
      &=frac1Gamma(3)int_0^inftyfracx^3-1e^x-1mathrm dx\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      Overall this is more or less the same as the second approach, but I wanted to bring the integral representation into play. While this approach seems to omit the usage of a series representation we need it actually in order to prove the here used representation for the Zeta Function.



      IV: The Trilogarithm $operatornameLi_3(1)$



      Similiar to the second approach we may chose Integration By Parts as suitable technique but instead we will apply it with $u=log(x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(1-x)x$ to get



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=underbraceleft[log(x)(-operatornameLi_2(x))right]_0^1_to0+int_0^1fracoperatornameLi_2(x)xmathrm dx\
      &=[operatornameLi_3(x)]_0^1\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      A quick look at the series representation of the Trilogarithm verifies the last line.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Hey, that's nicely done, but you took them all 😒.
        $endgroup$
        – Number
        Apr 27 at 6:29











      • $begingroup$
        @Zacky Thank you! I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist ^^
        $endgroup$
        – mrtaurho
        Apr 27 at 7:37















      9












      $begingroup$

      There is a variety of possibilities how to show that this integral indeed equals $zeta(3)$, i.e. Apéry's Constant. I would like to show some of them



      I: Taylor Series Expansion of $log(1-x)$



      As it was first suggested within the comments (and done by FDP) we may expand the $log(1-x)$ term as Taylor Series. Specifically, by using the MacLaurin Series of the aforementioned logarithm we obtain



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=int_0^1fraclog(x)xleft[-sum_n=1^inftyfracx^nnright]mathrm dx\
      &=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nint_0^1x^n-1log(x)mathrm dx\
      &=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nleft[-frac1n^2right]\
      &=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      This might be the most straightforward approach possible.



      II: Integration By Parts



      Choosing $u=log(1-x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(x)x$ we can apply Integration By Parts which gives



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)x&=underbraceleft[log(1-x)fraclog^2(x)2right]_0^1_to0+frac12int_0^1fraclog^2(x)1-xmathrm dx\
      &=frac12int_0^1log^2(x)left[sum_n=0^infty x^nright]mathrm dx\
      &=frac12sum_n=0^inftyint_0^1x^nlog^2(x)mathrm dx\
      &=frac12sum_n=0^inftyleft[frac2(n+1)^3right]\
      &=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      Again, we utilized a series expansion, this time the one of the geometric series.



      III: Integral Representation of the Zeta Function



      To use the Integral Representation of the Zeta Function here we need to reshape the integral a little bit. Starting with substitution $log(x)mapsto -x$ followed by Integration By Parts again we find



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=-int_infty^0(-x)log(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
      &=-int_0^infty xlog(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
      &=underbraceleft[fracx^22log(1-e^-x)right]_0^infty_to0+frac12int_0^inftyfracx^21-e^-xe^-xmathrm dx\
      &=frac1Gamma(3)int_0^inftyfracx^3-1e^x-1mathrm dx\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      Overall this is more or less the same as the second approach, but I wanted to bring the integral representation into play. While this approach seems to omit the usage of a series representation we need it actually in order to prove the here used representation for the Zeta Function.



      IV: The Trilogarithm $operatornameLi_3(1)$



      Similiar to the second approach we may chose Integration By Parts as suitable technique but instead we will apply it with $u=log(x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(1-x)x$ to get



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=underbraceleft[log(x)(-operatornameLi_2(x))right]_0^1_to0+int_0^1fracoperatornameLi_2(x)xmathrm dx\
      &=[operatornameLi_3(x)]_0^1\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      A quick look at the series representation of the Trilogarithm verifies the last line.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Hey, that's nicely done, but you took them all 😒.
        $endgroup$
        – Number
        Apr 27 at 6:29











      • $begingroup$
        @Zacky Thank you! I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist ^^
        $endgroup$
        – mrtaurho
        Apr 27 at 7:37













      9












      9








      9





      $begingroup$

      There is a variety of possibilities how to show that this integral indeed equals $zeta(3)$, i.e. Apéry's Constant. I would like to show some of them



      I: Taylor Series Expansion of $log(1-x)$



      As it was first suggested within the comments (and done by FDP) we may expand the $log(1-x)$ term as Taylor Series. Specifically, by using the MacLaurin Series of the aforementioned logarithm we obtain



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=int_0^1fraclog(x)xleft[-sum_n=1^inftyfracx^nnright]mathrm dx\
      &=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nint_0^1x^n-1log(x)mathrm dx\
      &=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nleft[-frac1n^2right]\
      &=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      This might be the most straightforward approach possible.



      II: Integration By Parts



      Choosing $u=log(1-x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(x)x$ we can apply Integration By Parts which gives



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)x&=underbraceleft[log(1-x)fraclog^2(x)2right]_0^1_to0+frac12int_0^1fraclog^2(x)1-xmathrm dx\
      &=frac12int_0^1log^2(x)left[sum_n=0^infty x^nright]mathrm dx\
      &=frac12sum_n=0^inftyint_0^1x^nlog^2(x)mathrm dx\
      &=frac12sum_n=0^inftyleft[frac2(n+1)^3right]\
      &=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      Again, we utilized a series expansion, this time the one of the geometric series.



      III: Integral Representation of the Zeta Function



      To use the Integral Representation of the Zeta Function here we need to reshape the integral a little bit. Starting with substitution $log(x)mapsto -x$ followed by Integration By Parts again we find



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=-int_infty^0(-x)log(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
      &=-int_0^infty xlog(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
      &=underbraceleft[fracx^22log(1-e^-x)right]_0^infty_to0+frac12int_0^inftyfracx^21-e^-xe^-xmathrm dx\
      &=frac1Gamma(3)int_0^inftyfracx^3-1e^x-1mathrm dx\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      Overall this is more or less the same as the second approach, but I wanted to bring the integral representation into play. While this approach seems to omit the usage of a series representation we need it actually in order to prove the here used representation for the Zeta Function.



      IV: The Trilogarithm $operatornameLi_3(1)$



      Similiar to the second approach we may chose Integration By Parts as suitable technique but instead we will apply it with $u=log(x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(1-x)x$ to get



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=underbraceleft[log(x)(-operatornameLi_2(x))right]_0^1_to0+int_0^1fracoperatornameLi_2(x)xmathrm dx\
      &=[operatornameLi_3(x)]_0^1\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      A quick look at the series representation of the Trilogarithm verifies the last line.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      There is a variety of possibilities how to show that this integral indeed equals $zeta(3)$, i.e. Apéry's Constant. I would like to show some of them



      I: Taylor Series Expansion of $log(1-x)$



      As it was first suggested within the comments (and done by FDP) we may expand the $log(1-x)$ term as Taylor Series. Specifically, by using the MacLaurin Series of the aforementioned logarithm we obtain



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=int_0^1fraclog(x)xleft[-sum_n=1^inftyfracx^nnright]mathrm dx\
      &=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nint_0^1x^n-1log(x)mathrm dx\
      &=-sum_n=1^inftyfrac1nleft[-frac1n^2right]\
      &=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      This might be the most straightforward approach possible.



      II: Integration By Parts



      Choosing $u=log(1-x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(x)x$ we can apply Integration By Parts which gives



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)x&=underbraceleft[log(1-x)fraclog^2(x)2right]_0^1_to0+frac12int_0^1fraclog^2(x)1-xmathrm dx\
      &=frac12int_0^1log^2(x)left[sum_n=0^infty x^nright]mathrm dx\
      &=frac12sum_n=0^inftyint_0^1x^nlog^2(x)mathrm dx\
      &=frac12sum_n=0^inftyleft[frac2(n+1)^3right]\
      &=sum_n=1^inftyfrac1n^3\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      Again, we utilized a series expansion, this time the one of the geometric series.



      III: Integral Representation of the Zeta Function



      To use the Integral Representation of the Zeta Function here we need to reshape the integral a little bit. Starting with substitution $log(x)mapsto -x$ followed by Integration By Parts again we find



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=-int_infty^0(-x)log(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
      &=-int_0^infty xlog(1-e^-x)mathrm dx\
      &=underbraceleft[fracx^22log(1-e^-x)right]_0^infty_to0+frac12int_0^inftyfracx^21-e^-xe^-xmathrm dx\
      &=frac1Gamma(3)int_0^inftyfracx^3-1e^x-1mathrm dx\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      Overall this is more or less the same as the second approach, but I wanted to bring the integral representation into play. While this approach seems to omit the usage of a series representation we need it actually in order to prove the here used representation for the Zeta Function.



      IV: The Trilogarithm $operatornameLi_3(1)$



      Similiar to the second approach we may chose Integration By Parts as suitable technique but instead we will apply it with $u=log(x)$ and $mathrm dv=fraclog(1-x)x$ to get



      beginalign*
      int_0^1fraclog(1-x)log(x)xmathrm dx&=underbraceleft[log(x)(-operatornameLi_2(x))right]_0^1_to0+int_0^1fracoperatornameLi_2(x)xmathrm dx\
      &=[operatornameLi_3(x)]_0^1\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign*



      A quick look at the series representation of the Trilogarithm verifies the last line.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Apr 26 at 20:38









      mrtaurhomrtaurho

      6,73071843




      6,73071843











      • $begingroup$
        Hey, that's nicely done, but you took them all 😒.
        $endgroup$
        – Number
        Apr 27 at 6:29











      • $begingroup$
        @Zacky Thank you! I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist ^^
        $endgroup$
        – mrtaurho
        Apr 27 at 7:37
















      • $begingroup$
        Hey, that's nicely done, but you took them all 😒.
        $endgroup$
        – Number
        Apr 27 at 6:29











      • $begingroup$
        @Zacky Thank you! I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist ^^
        $endgroup$
        – mrtaurho
        Apr 27 at 7:37















      $begingroup$
      Hey, that's nicely done, but you took them all 😒.
      $endgroup$
      – Number
      Apr 27 at 6:29





      $begingroup$
      Hey, that's nicely done, but you took them all 😒.
      $endgroup$
      – Number
      Apr 27 at 6:29













      $begingroup$
      @Zacky Thank you! I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist ^^
      $endgroup$
      – mrtaurho
      Apr 27 at 7:37




      $begingroup$
      @Zacky Thank you! I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist ^^
      $endgroup$
      – mrtaurho
      Apr 27 at 7:37











      8












      $begingroup$

      beginalignJ&=int_0^1 fracln(1-x)ln xx dx\
      &=-int_0^1 left(sum_n=1^infty fracx^n-1nright)ln x,dx\
      &=-sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 x^n-1ln x,dx\
      &=sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3\
      &=zeta(3)
      endalign






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        8












        $begingroup$

        beginalignJ&=int_0^1 fracln(1-x)ln xx dx\
        &=-int_0^1 left(sum_n=1^infty fracx^n-1nright)ln x,dx\
        &=-sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 x^n-1ln x,dx\
        &=sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3\
        &=zeta(3)
        endalign






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          beginalignJ&=int_0^1 fracln(1-x)ln xx dx\
          &=-int_0^1 left(sum_n=1^infty fracx^n-1nright)ln x,dx\
          &=-sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 x^n-1ln x,dx\
          &=sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3\
          &=zeta(3)
          endalign






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          beginalignJ&=int_0^1 fracln(1-x)ln xx dx\
          &=-int_0^1 left(sum_n=1^infty fracx^n-1nright)ln x,dx\
          &=-sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 x^n-1ln x,dx\
          &=sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3\
          &=zeta(3)
          endalign







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Apr 26 at 20:10









          FDPFDP

          6,51712031




          6,51712031





















              4












              $begingroup$

              An informal argument: $$log (1-x) = - sum_k=0^infty fracx^k+1k+1, quad |x| < 1.$$ Then $$fraclog x log(1-x)x = -sum_k=0^infty fracx^k log xk+1,$$ and integrating term by term gives $$int_x=0^1 x^k log x , dx = left[ fracx^k+1 log xk+1 right]_x=0^1 - int_x=0^1 fracx^kk+1 , dx = - frac1(k+1)^2.$$ Therefore, $$int_x=0^1 fraclog x log(1-x)x , dx = sum_k=1^infty frac1k^3 = zeta(3).$$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                Very thanks much @heropup
                $endgroup$
                – user243301
                Dec 18 '15 at 18:34






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                May I ask what is so informal about this solution?
                $endgroup$
                – GohP.iHan
                Jan 1 '16 at 7:48















              4












              $begingroup$

              An informal argument: $$log (1-x) = - sum_k=0^infty fracx^k+1k+1, quad |x| < 1.$$ Then $$fraclog x log(1-x)x = -sum_k=0^infty fracx^k log xk+1,$$ and integrating term by term gives $$int_x=0^1 x^k log x , dx = left[ fracx^k+1 log xk+1 right]_x=0^1 - int_x=0^1 fracx^kk+1 , dx = - frac1(k+1)^2.$$ Therefore, $$int_x=0^1 fraclog x log(1-x)x , dx = sum_k=1^infty frac1k^3 = zeta(3).$$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                Very thanks much @heropup
                $endgroup$
                – user243301
                Dec 18 '15 at 18:34






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                May I ask what is so informal about this solution?
                $endgroup$
                – GohP.iHan
                Jan 1 '16 at 7:48













              4












              4








              4





              $begingroup$

              An informal argument: $$log (1-x) = - sum_k=0^infty fracx^k+1k+1, quad |x| < 1.$$ Then $$fraclog x log(1-x)x = -sum_k=0^infty fracx^k log xk+1,$$ and integrating term by term gives $$int_x=0^1 x^k log x , dx = left[ fracx^k+1 log xk+1 right]_x=0^1 - int_x=0^1 fracx^kk+1 , dx = - frac1(k+1)^2.$$ Therefore, $$int_x=0^1 fraclog x log(1-x)x , dx = sum_k=1^infty frac1k^3 = zeta(3).$$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              An informal argument: $$log (1-x) = - sum_k=0^infty fracx^k+1k+1, quad |x| < 1.$$ Then $$fraclog x log(1-x)x = -sum_k=0^infty fracx^k log xk+1,$$ and integrating term by term gives $$int_x=0^1 x^k log x , dx = left[ fracx^k+1 log xk+1 right]_x=0^1 - int_x=0^1 fracx^kk+1 , dx = - frac1(k+1)^2.$$ Therefore, $$int_x=0^1 fraclog x log(1-x)x , dx = sum_k=1^infty frac1k^3 = zeta(3).$$







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Dec 18 '15 at 18:32









              heropupheropup

              66.2k866104




              66.2k866104











              • $begingroup$
                Very thanks much @heropup
                $endgroup$
                – user243301
                Dec 18 '15 at 18:34






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                May I ask what is so informal about this solution?
                $endgroup$
                – GohP.iHan
                Jan 1 '16 at 7:48
















              • $begingroup$
                Very thanks much @heropup
                $endgroup$
                – user243301
                Dec 18 '15 at 18:34






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                May I ask what is so informal about this solution?
                $endgroup$
                – GohP.iHan
                Jan 1 '16 at 7:48















              $begingroup$
              Very thanks much @heropup
              $endgroup$
              – user243301
              Dec 18 '15 at 18:34




              $begingroup$
              Very thanks much @heropup
              $endgroup$
              – user243301
              Dec 18 '15 at 18:34




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              May I ask what is so informal about this solution?
              $endgroup$
              – GohP.iHan
              Jan 1 '16 at 7:48




              $begingroup$
              May I ask what is so informal about this solution?
              $endgroup$
              – GohP.iHan
              Jan 1 '16 at 7:48











              4












              $begingroup$

              $newcommandbbx[1],bbox[15px,border:1px groove navy]displaystyle#1,
              newcommandbraces[1]leftlbrace,#1,rightrbrace
              newcommandbracks[1]leftlbrack,#1,rightrbrack
              newcommandddmathrmd
              newcommandds[1]displaystyle#1
              newcommandexpo[1],mathrme^#1,
              newcommandicmathrmi
              newcommandmc[1]mathcal#1
              newcommandmrm[1]mathrm#1
              newcommandpars[1]left(,#1,right)
              newcommandpartiald[3][]fracpartial^#1 #2partial #3^#1
              newcommandroot[2][],sqrt[#1],#2,,
              newcommandtotald[3][]fracmathrmd^#1 #2mathrmd #3^#1
              newcommandverts[1]leftvert,#1,rightvert$



              You can add this "weird" answer to the excellent
              $texttt@mrtaurho$ long list:
              beginalign
              &bbox[10px,#ffd]%
              int_0^1lnpars1 - xlnparsx over x,dd x =
              left.partial^2 over partialmu,partialnuint_0^1
              brackspars1 - x^mu - 1x^nu over x,dd x,rightvert_largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
              \[5mm] = &
              partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
              int_0^1x^nu - 1pars1 - x^mu,dd x -
              int_0^1x^nu - 1,dd x
              _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
              \[5mm] = &
              partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
              GammaparsnuGammaparsmu + 1 over
              Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1 over nu
              _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
              \[5mm] = &
              partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubraces1 over nubracks%
              Gammaparsnu + 1Gammaparsmu + 1 over
              Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1
              _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
              \[5mm] = &
              1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
              partialdmubracksGammaparsmu + 1 over
              Gammaparsnu + mu + 1
              _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
              \[5mm] = &
              1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
              bracks-,gamma + Psiparsnu + 1 over
              Gammaparsnu + 1 _ nu = 0^+
              \[5mm] = &
              -,1 over 2,Psi,''pars1 = bbxzetapars3
              endalign






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                4












                $begingroup$

                $newcommandbbx[1],bbox[15px,border:1px groove navy]displaystyle#1,
                newcommandbraces[1]leftlbrace,#1,rightrbrace
                newcommandbracks[1]leftlbrack,#1,rightrbrack
                newcommandddmathrmd
                newcommandds[1]displaystyle#1
                newcommandexpo[1],mathrme^#1,
                newcommandicmathrmi
                newcommandmc[1]mathcal#1
                newcommandmrm[1]mathrm#1
                newcommandpars[1]left(,#1,right)
                newcommandpartiald[3][]fracpartial^#1 #2partial #3^#1
                newcommandroot[2][],sqrt[#1],#2,,
                newcommandtotald[3][]fracmathrmd^#1 #2mathrmd #3^#1
                newcommandverts[1]leftvert,#1,rightvert$



                You can add this "weird" answer to the excellent
                $texttt@mrtaurho$ long list:
                beginalign
                &bbox[10px,#ffd]%
                int_0^1lnpars1 - xlnparsx over x,dd x =
                left.partial^2 over partialmu,partialnuint_0^1
                brackspars1 - x^mu - 1x^nu over x,dd x,rightvert_largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                \[5mm] = &
                partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
                int_0^1x^nu - 1pars1 - x^mu,dd x -
                int_0^1x^nu - 1,dd x
                _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                \[5mm] = &
                partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
                GammaparsnuGammaparsmu + 1 over
                Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1 over nu
                _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                \[5mm] = &
                partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubraces1 over nubracks%
                Gammaparsnu + 1Gammaparsmu + 1 over
                Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1
                _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                \[5mm] = &
                1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
                partialdmubracksGammaparsmu + 1 over
                Gammaparsnu + mu + 1
                _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                \[5mm] = &
                1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
                bracks-,gamma + Psiparsnu + 1 over
                Gammaparsnu + 1 _ nu = 0^+
                \[5mm] = &
                -,1 over 2,Psi,''pars1 = bbxzetapars3
                endalign






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  4












                  4








                  4





                  $begingroup$

                  $newcommandbbx[1],bbox[15px,border:1px groove navy]displaystyle#1,
                  newcommandbraces[1]leftlbrace,#1,rightrbrace
                  newcommandbracks[1]leftlbrack,#1,rightrbrack
                  newcommandddmathrmd
                  newcommandds[1]displaystyle#1
                  newcommandexpo[1],mathrme^#1,
                  newcommandicmathrmi
                  newcommandmc[1]mathcal#1
                  newcommandmrm[1]mathrm#1
                  newcommandpars[1]left(,#1,right)
                  newcommandpartiald[3][]fracpartial^#1 #2partial #3^#1
                  newcommandroot[2][],sqrt[#1],#2,,
                  newcommandtotald[3][]fracmathrmd^#1 #2mathrmd #3^#1
                  newcommandverts[1]leftvert,#1,rightvert$



                  You can add this "weird" answer to the excellent
                  $texttt@mrtaurho$ long list:
                  beginalign
                  &bbox[10px,#ffd]%
                  int_0^1lnpars1 - xlnparsx over x,dd x =
                  left.partial^2 over partialmu,partialnuint_0^1
                  brackspars1 - x^mu - 1x^nu over x,dd x,rightvert_largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
                  int_0^1x^nu - 1pars1 - x^mu,dd x -
                  int_0^1x^nu - 1,dd x
                  _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
                  GammaparsnuGammaparsmu + 1 over
                  Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1 over nu
                  _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubraces1 over nubracks%
                  Gammaparsnu + 1Gammaparsmu + 1 over
                  Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1
                  _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
                  partialdmubracksGammaparsmu + 1 over
                  Gammaparsnu + mu + 1
                  _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
                  bracks-,gamma + Psiparsnu + 1 over
                  Gammaparsnu + 1 _ nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  -,1 over 2,Psi,''pars1 = bbxzetapars3
                  endalign






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  $newcommandbbx[1],bbox[15px,border:1px groove navy]displaystyle#1,
                  newcommandbraces[1]leftlbrace,#1,rightrbrace
                  newcommandbracks[1]leftlbrack,#1,rightrbrack
                  newcommandddmathrmd
                  newcommandds[1]displaystyle#1
                  newcommandexpo[1],mathrme^#1,
                  newcommandicmathrmi
                  newcommandmc[1]mathcal#1
                  newcommandmrm[1]mathrm#1
                  newcommandpars[1]left(,#1,right)
                  newcommandpartiald[3][]fracpartial^#1 #2partial #3^#1
                  newcommandroot[2][],sqrt[#1],#2,,
                  newcommandtotald[3][]fracmathrmd^#1 #2mathrmd #3^#1
                  newcommandverts[1]leftvert,#1,rightvert$



                  You can add this "weird" answer to the excellent
                  $texttt@mrtaurho$ long list:
                  beginalign
                  &bbox[10px,#ffd]%
                  int_0^1lnpars1 - xlnparsx over x,dd x =
                  left.partial^2 over partialmu,partialnuint_0^1
                  brackspars1 - x^mu - 1x^nu over x,dd x,rightvert_largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
                  int_0^1x^nu - 1pars1 - x^mu,dd x -
                  int_0^1x^nu - 1,dd x
                  _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubracks%
                  GammaparsnuGammaparsmu + 1 over
                  Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1 over nu
                  _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  partial^2 over partialmu,partialnubraces1 over nubracks%
                  Gammaparsnu + 1Gammaparsmu + 1 over
                  Gammaparsnu + mu + 1 - 1
                  _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
                  partialdmubracksGammaparsmu + 1 over
                  Gammaparsnu + mu + 1
                  _largemu = 0 atop large,,nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  1 over 2,partiald[2]nubracesGammaparsnu + 1
                  bracks-,gamma + Psiparsnu + 1 over
                  Gammaparsnu + 1 _ nu = 0^+
                  \[5mm] = &
                  -,1 over 2,Psi,''pars1 = bbxzetapars3
                  endalign







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Apr 27 at 6:41

























                  answered Apr 27 at 6:36









                  Felix MarinFelix Marin

                  69.6k7111148




                  69.6k7111148





















                      3












                      $begingroup$

                      Let $x = e^-y$, we have
                      $$int_0^1 fraclog xlog(1-x)x dx
                      = int_0^1 frac(-log x)x sum_n=1^infty fracx^nn dx
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 (-log x) x^n-1 dx\
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^infty y e^-ny dy
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3
                      = zeta(3)
                      $$
                      Please note that we can switch the order of summation and integration because all the individual terms are non-negative.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        Very thanks much @achillehui incredible. I take notes from your solution.
                        $endgroup$
                        – user243301
                        Dec 18 '15 at 18:37










                      • $begingroup$
                        @achillehui Are you exploiting Fubini-Tonelli with the counting measure on $mathbbN$ and Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ to justify interchanging the series and integration?
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mark Viola
                        Mar 20 '17 at 2:56










                      • $begingroup$
                        @Dr.MV the last phrase "because all the individual terms are non-negative" is essentially Tonelli theorem.
                        $endgroup$
                        – achille hui
                        Mar 20 '17 at 4:05










                      • $begingroup$
                        @achillehui Yes, I know. So, you are exploiting it then?
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mark Viola
                        Mar 20 '17 at 4:19















                      3












                      $begingroup$

                      Let $x = e^-y$, we have
                      $$int_0^1 fraclog xlog(1-x)x dx
                      = int_0^1 frac(-log x)x sum_n=1^infty fracx^nn dx
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 (-log x) x^n-1 dx\
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^infty y e^-ny dy
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3
                      = zeta(3)
                      $$
                      Please note that we can switch the order of summation and integration because all the individual terms are non-negative.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        Very thanks much @achillehui incredible. I take notes from your solution.
                        $endgroup$
                        – user243301
                        Dec 18 '15 at 18:37










                      • $begingroup$
                        @achillehui Are you exploiting Fubini-Tonelli with the counting measure on $mathbbN$ and Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ to justify interchanging the series and integration?
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mark Viola
                        Mar 20 '17 at 2:56










                      • $begingroup$
                        @Dr.MV the last phrase "because all the individual terms are non-negative" is essentially Tonelli theorem.
                        $endgroup$
                        – achille hui
                        Mar 20 '17 at 4:05










                      • $begingroup$
                        @achillehui Yes, I know. So, you are exploiting it then?
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mark Viola
                        Mar 20 '17 at 4:19













                      3












                      3








                      3





                      $begingroup$

                      Let $x = e^-y$, we have
                      $$int_0^1 fraclog xlog(1-x)x dx
                      = int_0^1 frac(-log x)x sum_n=1^infty fracx^nn dx
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 (-log x) x^n-1 dx\
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^infty y e^-ny dy
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3
                      = zeta(3)
                      $$
                      Please note that we can switch the order of summation and integration because all the individual terms are non-negative.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$



                      Let $x = e^-y$, we have
                      $$int_0^1 fraclog xlog(1-x)x dx
                      = int_0^1 frac(-log x)x sum_n=1^infty fracx^nn dx
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^1 (-log x) x^n-1 dx\
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1nint_0^infty y e^-ny dy
                      = sum_n=1^infty frac1n^3
                      = zeta(3)
                      $$
                      Please note that we can switch the order of summation and integration because all the individual terms are non-negative.







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited Dec 18 '15 at 18:39

























                      answered Dec 18 '15 at 18:36









                      achille huiachille hui

                      97.2k5132263




                      97.2k5132263











                      • $begingroup$
                        Very thanks much @achillehui incredible. I take notes from your solution.
                        $endgroup$
                        – user243301
                        Dec 18 '15 at 18:37










                      • $begingroup$
                        @achillehui Are you exploiting Fubini-Tonelli with the counting measure on $mathbbN$ and Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ to justify interchanging the series and integration?
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mark Viola
                        Mar 20 '17 at 2:56










                      • $begingroup$
                        @Dr.MV the last phrase "because all the individual terms are non-negative" is essentially Tonelli theorem.
                        $endgroup$
                        – achille hui
                        Mar 20 '17 at 4:05










                      • $begingroup$
                        @achillehui Yes, I know. So, you are exploiting it then?
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mark Viola
                        Mar 20 '17 at 4:19
















                      • $begingroup$
                        Very thanks much @achillehui incredible. I take notes from your solution.
                        $endgroup$
                        – user243301
                        Dec 18 '15 at 18:37










                      • $begingroup$
                        @achillehui Are you exploiting Fubini-Tonelli with the counting measure on $mathbbN$ and Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ to justify interchanging the series and integration?
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mark Viola
                        Mar 20 '17 at 2:56










                      • $begingroup$
                        @Dr.MV the last phrase "because all the individual terms are non-negative" is essentially Tonelli theorem.
                        $endgroup$
                        – achille hui
                        Mar 20 '17 at 4:05










                      • $begingroup$
                        @achillehui Yes, I know. So, you are exploiting it then?
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mark Viola
                        Mar 20 '17 at 4:19















                      $begingroup$
                      Very thanks much @achillehui incredible. I take notes from your solution.
                      $endgroup$
                      – user243301
                      Dec 18 '15 at 18:37




                      $begingroup$
                      Very thanks much @achillehui incredible. I take notes from your solution.
                      $endgroup$
                      – user243301
                      Dec 18 '15 at 18:37












                      $begingroup$
                      @achillehui Are you exploiting Fubini-Tonelli with the counting measure on $mathbbN$ and Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ to justify interchanging the series and integration?
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mark Viola
                      Mar 20 '17 at 2:56




                      $begingroup$
                      @achillehui Are you exploiting Fubini-Tonelli with the counting measure on $mathbbN$ and Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ to justify interchanging the series and integration?
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mark Viola
                      Mar 20 '17 at 2:56












                      $begingroup$
                      @Dr.MV the last phrase "because all the individual terms are non-negative" is essentially Tonelli theorem.
                      $endgroup$
                      – achille hui
                      Mar 20 '17 at 4:05




                      $begingroup$
                      @Dr.MV the last phrase "because all the individual terms are non-negative" is essentially Tonelli theorem.
                      $endgroup$
                      – achille hui
                      Mar 20 '17 at 4:05












                      $begingroup$
                      @achillehui Yes, I know. So, you are exploiting it then?
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mark Viola
                      Mar 20 '17 at 4:19




                      $begingroup$
                      @achillehui Yes, I know. So, you are exploiting it then?
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mark Viola
                      Mar 20 '17 at 4:19











                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      The Beta function and Feynman's trick are another way to go:



                      $$I=int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)x,dx =left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bint_0^1x^a-1(1-x)^b,dx,right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag1 $$
                      hence:
                      $$ I = left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bfracGamma(a)Gamma(b+1)Gamma(a+b+1),right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag2 $$
                      and by exploiting $Gamma'(z) = Gamma(z)cdotpsi(z)$ we get:
                      $$ I = -frac12psi''(2)=sum_ngeq 0frac1(n+1)^3=colorredzeta(3)tag3 $$
                      as wanted.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        I try understand your contribution too, now I am saturated. My changes to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense. Very thanks much @JackD'Aurizio.
                        $endgroup$
                        – user243301
                        Dec 18 '15 at 18:54















                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      The Beta function and Feynman's trick are another way to go:



                      $$I=int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)x,dx =left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bint_0^1x^a-1(1-x)^b,dx,right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag1 $$
                      hence:
                      $$ I = left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bfracGamma(a)Gamma(b+1)Gamma(a+b+1),right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag2 $$
                      and by exploiting $Gamma'(z) = Gamma(z)cdotpsi(z)$ we get:
                      $$ I = -frac12psi''(2)=sum_ngeq 0frac1(n+1)^3=colorredzeta(3)tag3 $$
                      as wanted.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        I try understand your contribution too, now I am saturated. My changes to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense. Very thanks much @JackD'Aurizio.
                        $endgroup$
                        – user243301
                        Dec 18 '15 at 18:54













                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      The Beta function and Feynman's trick are another way to go:



                      $$I=int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)x,dx =left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bint_0^1x^a-1(1-x)^b,dx,right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag1 $$
                      hence:
                      $$ I = left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bfracGamma(a)Gamma(b+1)Gamma(a+b+1),right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag2 $$
                      and by exploiting $Gamma'(z) = Gamma(z)cdotpsi(z)$ we get:
                      $$ I = -frac12psi''(2)=sum_ngeq 0frac1(n+1)^3=colorredzeta(3)tag3 $$
                      as wanted.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      The Beta function and Feynman's trick are another way to go:



                      $$I=int_0^1fraclog(x)log(1-x)x,dx =left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bint_0^1x^a-1(1-x)^b,dx,right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag1 $$
                      hence:
                      $$ I = left.fracpartial^2partial a partial bfracGamma(a)Gamma(b+1)Gamma(a+b+1),right|_alpha,beta=0^+tag2 $$
                      and by exploiting $Gamma'(z) = Gamma(z)cdotpsi(z)$ we get:
                      $$ I = -frac12psi''(2)=sum_ngeq 0frac1(n+1)^3=colorredzeta(3)tag3 $$
                      as wanted.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Dec 18 '15 at 18:48









                      Jack D'AurizioJack D'Aurizio

                      293k33285675




                      293k33285675











                      • $begingroup$
                        I try understand your contribution too, now I am saturated. My changes to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense. Very thanks much @JackD'Aurizio.
                        $endgroup$
                        – user243301
                        Dec 18 '15 at 18:54
















                      • $begingroup$
                        I try understand your contribution too, now I am saturated. My changes to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense. Very thanks much @JackD'Aurizio.
                        $endgroup$
                        – user243301
                        Dec 18 '15 at 18:54















                      $begingroup$
                      I try understand your contribution too, now I am saturated. My changes to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense. Very thanks much @JackD'Aurizio.
                      $endgroup$
                      – user243301
                      Dec 18 '15 at 18:54




                      $begingroup$
                      I try understand your contribution too, now I am saturated. My changes to obtain the integral as a summand (there were two summands) were first $x=e^z/y$, second $u=z/y$ and finally $v=e^u$. I hope that it has sense. Very thanks much @JackD'Aurizio.
                      $endgroup$
                      – user243301
                      Dec 18 '15 at 18:54

















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1581354%2fcan-you-compute-int-01-frac-logx-log1-xxdx-more-precisely-than-1-20%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

                      Image
                      centralized watchlist Wikipedia:Vital articles Wikipedia дан Jump to navigation Jump to search This is a list of basic subjects for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article. It also serves as a centralized watchlist and tracks the status of some of Wikipedia's most essential articles. Ideally this page should list approximately 1,000 of the most vital Wikipedia articles. Мазмуну 1 Biography - Өмүр баян 1.1 Actors, dancers and models - Актёрлор, бийчилер жана моделдер 1.2 Artists and architects - Сүрөтчүлөр жана архитекторлор 1.3 Authors, playwrights and poets - Жазуучулар, драматургдар жана акындар 1.4 Composers and musicians - Композиторлор жана музыканттар 1.5 Explorers and travelers - Изилдөөчүлөр менен саякатчылар 1.6 Film directors and screenwriters - Режиссёрлор жана сценаристтер 1.7 Inventors, scientists and mathematicians - Ойлоп табуучулар, окумуштуулар жана математиктер
                      Read more

                      Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

                      Image
                      AnderlechtCidade de BruxelasIxellesEtterbeekEvereGanshorenJetteKoekelbergAuderghemSchaerbeekBerchem-Sainte-AgatheSaint-GillesMolenbeek-Saint-JeanSaint-Josse-ten-NoodeWoluwe-Saint-LambertWoluwe-Saint-PierreUccleForestWatermaal-Bosvoorde Comunidade Francesa de Bélxica Comunidade Flamenga de Bélxica Comunidade Xermanófona de Bélxica Bruxelas-CapitalRexións de Bélxica francésneerlandésRexiónsBélxicacomunidade francesacomunidade flamengafrancófonaflamengaUnión EuropeaMagrebMarrocosTurquíaAméricaÁfricaRepública Democrática do CongoEuropa central18 de xuño1989FlandresRexión Valoaflamengaséculo XIXClasificación climática de Köppen Bruxelas-Capital Na Galipedia, a Wikipedia en galego. Saltar ata a navegación Saltar á procura Para outras páxinas con títulos homónimos véxase: Bruxelas . Région de Bruxelles-Capitale Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest Bandeira Estado Bélxica Capital Cidade de Bruxelas  • Poboación n/d Lingua oficial As dúas Superficie  • Total 1
                      Read more

                      What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company

                      Image
                      When is the original BFGS algorithm still better than the Limited-Memory version? How well known and how commonly used was Huffman coding in 1979? Inverse-quotes-quine Can the US president have someone sent to jail? Employer wants to use my work email account after I quit, is this legal under German law? Is this a GDPR waiver? Do French speakers not use the subjunctive informally? Low-gravity Bronze Age fortifications Does ultrasonic bath cleaning damage laboratory volumetric glassware calibration? Why do some games show lights shine through walls? Unusual mail headers, evidence of an attempted attack. Have I been pwned? Smooth Julia set for quadratic polynomials Require advice on power conservation for backpacking trip Dimensions of list used in test C-152 carb heat on before landing in hot weather? Is my Rep in Stack-Exchange Form? What happens when your group is victim of a surprise attack but you can't be surprised? How come I was asked by a CBP
                      Read more