Saturday 2 October 2004 at 10:04 pm | In Articles | 2 Comments

Six months ago in an article on the LambertW function I wrote:

    Thus \ln is defined by \displaystyle \ln x=\int ^x _0 \frac{dt}{t}\text{ for } x>0 and it is then clear that, for example, \ln 1=0

There’s a serious error in there which also completely invalidates it is then clear that …. Going back to the article the mistake leapt out at me – is it obvious to you? It’s strange how you read what you want to read rather than what is actually there 😕


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Can’t believe I’m the first one to spot it, but someone’s got to say it: the lower limit of the integral should be 1.

    Comment by Anton Sherwood — Wednesday 5 January 2005 6:02 pm #

  2. You are right. It was 6 months after writing the original article I re-read it and saw the error and hence this post.

    Comment by Steve — Wednesday 5 January 2005 7:04 pm #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^