The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Integration of Functions of a Single Variable

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Integration of Functions of a Single Variable

Author: G. H. Hardy

Editor: Philip Hall

F. Smithies


Release date: March 3, 2012 [eBook #38993]
Most recently updated: August 6, 2026

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38993

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE INTEGRATION OF FUNCTIONS OF A SINGLE VARIABLE ***
a foundational text in mathematical analysis focusing on symbolical integration and the theory of integration in finite terms.

Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics and Mathematical Physics

General Editors
G. H. HARDY, M.A., F.R.S.
E. CUNNINGHAM, M.A.

No. 2

The Integration of Functions of a Single Variable

BY

G. H. HARDY

Fellow of New College
Savilian Professor of Geometry in the University of Oxford
Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge

SECOND EDITION

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

London

Fetter lane, E.C. 4


Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics
and Mathematical Physics

General Editors P. HALL, F.R.S. and F. SMITHIES, Ph.D.


First Edition 1905
Second Edition 1916
Reprinted 1928

Printed in Great Britain


PREFACE

THIS tract has been long out of print, and there is still some demand for it. I did not publish a second edition before, because I intended to incorporate its contents in a larger treatise on the subject which I had arranged to write in collaboration with Dr Bromwich. Four or five years have passed, and it seems very doubtful whether either of us will ever find the time to carry out our intention. I have therefore decided to republish the tract.

The new edition differs from the first in one important point only. In the first edition I reproduced a proof of Abel's which Mr J. E. Littlewood afterwards discovered to be invalid. The correction of this error has led me to rewrite a few sections (pp. 36—41 of the present edition) completely. The proof which I give now is due to Mr H. T. J. Norton. I am also indebted to Mr Norton, and to Mr S. Pollard, for many other criticisms of a less important character.

G. H. H.

January 1916.


CONTENTS

PAGE
I. Introduction 1
II. Elementary functions and their classification 3
III. The integration of elementary functions. Summary of results 8
IV. The integration of rational functions 11
1-3. The method of partial fractions 11
4. Hermite's method of integration 15
5. Particular problems of integration 17
6. The limitations of the methods of integration 20
7. Conclusion 22
V. The integration of algebraical functions 22
1. Algebraical functions 22
2. Integration by rationalisation. Integrals associated with conics 23
3-6. The integral integral upper R left brace x comma StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis right brace d x 25
7. Unicursal plane curves 32
8. Particular cases 35
9. Unicursal curves in space 37
10. Integrals of algebraical functions in general 38
11-14. The general form of the integral of an algebraical function.
Integrals which are themselves algebraical
38
15. Discussion of a particular case 45
16. The transcendence of e Superscript x and log x 47
17. Laplace's principle 48
18. The general form of the integral of an algebraical function (continued).
Integrals expressible by algebraical functions and logarithms
48
19. Elliptic and pseudo-elliptic integrals. Binomial integrals 50
20. Curves of deficiency 1. The plane cubic 51
21. Degenerate Abelian integrals 53
22. The classification of elliptic integrals 54
VI. The integration of transcendental functions 55
1. Preliminary 55
2. The integral integral upper R left parenthesis e Superscript a x Baseline comma e Superscript b x Baseline comma ellipsis comma e Superscript k x Baseline right parenthesis d x 56
3. The integral integral upper P left parenthesis x comma e Superscript a x Baseline comma e Superscript b x Baseline comma ellipsis right parenthesis d x 59
4. The integral integral e Superscript x Baseline upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x. The logarithm-integral 63
5. Liouville's general theorem 63
6. The integral integral log x upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x 64
7. Conclusion 65
Appendix I. Bibliography 66
Appendix II. On Abel's proof of the theorem of v., § 11 66

[Pg 1]

THE INTEGRATION OF FUNCTIONS OF A SINGLE VARIABLE

I. Introduction

The problem considered in the following pages is what is sometimes called the problem of 'indefinite integration' or of 'finding a function whose differential coefficient is a given function'. These descriptions are vague and in some ways misleading; and it is necessary to define our problem more precisely before we proceed further.

Let us suppose for the moment that f left parenthesis x right parenthesis is a real continuous function of the real variable x. We wish to determine a function y whose differential coefficient is f left parenthesis x right parenthesis, or to solve the equation StartFraction d y Over d x EndFraction equals f left parenthesis x right parenthesis period left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis A little reflection shows that this problem may be analysed into a number of parts.

We wish, first, to know whether such a function as y necessarily exists, whether the equation (1) has always a solution; whether the solution, if it exists, is unique; and what relations hold between different solutions, if there are more than one. The answers to these questions are contained in that part of the theory of functions of a real variable which deals with 'definite integrals'. The definite integral y equals integral Subscript a Superscript x Baseline f left parenthesis t right parenthesis d t comma left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis which is defined as the limit of a certain sum, is a solution of the equation (1). Further y plus upper C comma left parenthesis 3 right parenthesis [Pg 2]where upper C is an arbitrary constant, is also a solution, and all solutions of (1) are of the form (3).

These results we shall take for granted. The questions with which we shall be concerned are of a quite different character. They are questions as to the functional form of y when f left parenthesis x right parenthesis is a function of some stated form. It is sometimes said that the problem of indefinite integration is that of 'finding an actual expression for y when f left parenthesis x right parenthesis is given'. This statement is however still lacking in precision. The theory of definite integrals provides us not only with a proof of the existence of a solution, but also with an expression for it, an expression in the form of a limit. The problem of indefinite integration can be stated precisely only when we introduce sweeping restrictions as to the classes of functions and the modes of expression which we are considering.

Let us suppose that f left parenthesis x right parenthesis belongs to some special class of functions bold italic f. Then we may ask whether y is itself a member of bold italic f, or can be expressed, according to some simple standard mode of expression, in terms of functions which are members of bold italic f. To take a trivial example, we might suppose that bold italic f is the class of polynomials with rational coefficients: the answer would then be that y is in all cases itself a member of bold italic f.

The range and difficulty of our problem will depend upon our choice of (1) a class of functions and (2) a standard 'mode of expression'. We shall, for the purposes of this tract, take bold italic f to be the class of elementary functions, a class which will be defined precisely in the next section, and our mode of expression to be that of explicit expression in finite terms, i.e. by formulae which do not involve passages to a limit.

One or two more preliminary remarks are needed. The subject-matter of the tract forms a chapter in the 'integral calculus'[1], but does not depend in any way on any direct theory of integration. Such an equation as y equals integral f left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x left parenthesis 4 right parenthesis [Pg 3]is to be regarded as merely another way of writing (1): the integral sign is used merely on grounds of technical convenience, and might be eliminated throughout without any substantial change in the argument.

The variable x is in general supposed to be complex. But the tract should be intelligible to a reader who is not acquainted with the theory of analytic functions and who regards x as real and the functions of x which occur as real or complex functions of a real variable.

The functions with which we shall be dealing will always be such as are regular except for certain special values of x. These values of x we shall simply ignore. The meaning of such an equation as integral StartFraction d x Over x EndFraction equals log x is in no way affected by the fact that 1 divided by x and log x have infinities for x equals 0.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Euler, the first systematic writer on the 'integral calculus', defined it in a manner which identifies it with the theory of differential equations: 'calculus integralis est methodus, ex data differentialium relatione inveniendi relationem ipsarum quantitatum' (Institutiones calculi integralis, p. 1). We are concerned only with the special equation (1), but all the remarks we have made may be generalised so as to apply to the wider theory.


II. Elementary functions and their classification

An elementary function is a member of the class of functions which comprises

(i) rational functions,

(ii) algebraical functions, explicit or implicit,

(iii) the exponential function e Superscript x,

(iv) the logarithmic function log x,

(v) all functions which can be defined by means of any finite combination of the symbols proper to the preceding four classes of functions.

A few remarks and examples may help to elucidate this definition.

1. A rational function is a function defined by means of any finite combination of the elementary operations of addition, multiplication, and division, operating on the variable x.

It is shown in elementary algebra that any rational function of x may be expressed in the form f left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals StartFraction a 0 x Superscript m Baseline plus a 1 x Superscript m minus 1 Baseline plus ellipsis plus a Subscript m Baseline Over b 0 x Superscript n Baseline plus b 1 x Superscript n minus 1 Baseline plus ellipsis plus b Subscript n Baseline EndFraction comma where m and n are positive integers, the a's and b's are constants, and the numerator and denominator have no common factor. We shall adopt this expression as the standard form of a rational function. It is hardly necessary to remark that it is in no way involved in the[Pg 4] definition of a rational function that these constants should be rational or algebraical[2] or real numbers. Thus StartFraction x squared plus x plus i StartRoot EndRoot 2 Over x StartRoot EndRoot 2 minus e EndFraction is a rational function.

2. An explicit algebraical function is a function defined by means of any finite combination of the four elementary operations and any finite number of operations of root extraction. Thus StartFraction StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis minus RootIndex 3 StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis 1 minus x right parenthesis Over StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis plus RootIndex 3 StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis 1 minus x right parenthesis EndFraction comma StartRoot EndRoot left brace x plus StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis x plus StartRoot EndRoot x right parenthesis right brace comma left parenthesis StartFraction x squared plus x plus i StartRoot EndRoot 2 Over x StartRoot EndRoot 2 minus e EndFraction right parenthesis Superscript two thirds are explicit algebraical functions. And so is x Superscript StartFraction m Over n EndFraction (i.e. RootIndex n StartRoot x Superscript m Baseline EndRoot) for any integral values of m and n. On the other hand x Superscript StartRoot EndRoot 2 Baseline comma x Superscript 1 plus i are not algebraical functions at all, but transcendental functions, as irrational or complex powers are defined by the aid of exponentials and logarithms.

Any explicit algebraical function of x satisfies an equation upper P 0 y Superscript n Baseline plus upper P 1 y Superscript n minus 1 Baseline plus ellipsis plus upper P Subscript n Baseline equals 0 whose coefficients are polynomials in x. Thus, for example, the function y equals StartRoot EndRoot x plus StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis x plus StartRoot EndRoot x right parenthesis satisfies the equation y Superscript 4 Baseline minus left parenthesis 4 y squared plus 4 y plus 1 right parenthesis x equals 0 period The converse is not true, since it has been proved that in general equations of degree higher than the fourth have no roots which are explicit algebraical functions of their coefficients. A simple example is given by the equation y Superscript 5 Baseline minus y minus x equals 0 period [Pg 5]We are thus led to consider a more general class of functions, implicit algebraical functions, which includes the class of explicit algebraical functions.

3. An algebraical function of x is a function which satisfies an equation upper P 0 y Superscript n Baseline plus upper P 1 y Superscript n minus 1 Baseline plus ellipsis plus upper P Subscript n Baseline equals 0 left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis whose coefficients are polynomials in x.

Let us denote by upper P left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis a polynomial such as occurs on the left-hand side of (1). Then there are two possibilities as regards any particular polynomial upper P left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis. Either it is possible to express upper P left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis as the product of two polynomials of the same type, neither of which is a mere constant, or it is not. In the first case upper P left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis is said to be reducible, in the second irreducible. Thus y Superscript 4 Baseline minus x squared equals left parenthesis y squared plus x right parenthesis left parenthesis y squared minus x right parenthesis is reducible, while both y squared plus x and y squared minus x are irreducible.

The equation (1) is said to be reducible or irreducible according as its left-hand side is reducible or irreducible. A reducible equation can always be replaced by the logical alternative of a number of irreducible equations. Reducible equations are therefore of subsidiary importance only; and we shall always suppose that the equation (1) is irreducible.

An algebraical function of x is regular except at a finite number of points which are poles or branch points of the function. Let upper D be any closed simply connected domain in the plane of x which does not include any branch point. Then there are n and only n distinct functions which are one-valued in upper D and satisfy the equation (1). These n functions will be called the roots of (1) in upper D. Thus if we write x equals r left parenthesis cosine theta plus i sine theta right parenthesis comma where negative pi less than theta less than or slanted equals pi, then the roots of y squared minus x equals 0 comma in the domain 0 less than r 1 less than or slanted equals r less than or slanted equals r 2 comma negative pi less than negative pi plus delta less than or slanted equals theta less than or slanted equals pi minus delta less than pi comma are StartRoot x EndRoot and minus StartRoot x EndRoot, where StartRoot EndRoot x equals StartRoot EndRoot r left parenthesis cosine one half theta plus i sine one half theta right parenthesis period

The relations which hold between the different roots of (1) are of the greatest importance in the theory of functions[3]. For our present purposes we require only the two which follow.

(i) Any symmetric polynomial in the roots y 1 comma y 2 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline[Pg 6] of (1) is a rational function of x.

(ii) Any symmetric polynomial in y 2 comma y 3 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline is a polynomial in y 1 with coefficients which are rational functions of x.

The first proposition follows directly from the equations sigma summation y 1 y 2 ellipsis y 8 equals left parenthesis negative 1 right parenthesis Superscript 8 Baseline left parenthesis StartFraction upper P Subscript n minus ModifyingAbove s With dot Baseline Over upper P 0 EndFraction right parenthesis left parenthesis s equals 1 comma 2 comma ellipsis comma n right parenthesis period To prove the second we observe that sigma summation Underscript 2 comma 3 Endscripts comma ellipsis comma y 2 y 3 ellipsis y 8 equals sigma summation Underscript 1 comma 2 comma ellipsis Endscripts y 1 y 2 ellipsis y Subscript 8 minus 1 Baseline minus y 1 sigma summation Underscript 2 comma 3 comma ellipsis Overscript normal upper Sigma Endscripts y 2 y 3 ellipsis y Subscript 8 minus 1 Baseline comma so that the theorem is true for sigma summation y 2 y 3 ellipsis y Subscript s Baseline if it is true for sigma summation y 2 y 3 ellipsis y Subscript s minus 1 Baseline. It is certainly true for y 2 plus y 3 plus ellipsis plus y Subscript n Baseline equals left parenthesis y 1 plus y 2 plus ellipsis plus y Subscript n Baseline right parenthesis minus y 1 period It is therefore true for sigma summation y 2 y 3 ellipsis y Subscript s Baseline, and so for any symmetric polynomial in y 2 comma y 3 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline.

4. Elementary functions which are not rational or algebraical are called elementary transcendental functions or elementary transcendents. They include all the remaining functions which are of ordinary occurrence in elementary analysis.

The trigonometrical (or circular) and hyperbolic functions, direct and inverse, may all be expressed in terms of exponential or logarithmic functions by means of the ordinary formulae of elementary trigonometry. Thus, for example, StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column sine x 2nd Column equals StartFraction e Superscript i x Baseline minus e Superscript minus i x Baseline Over 2 i EndFraction comma 3rd Column hyperbolic sine x 4th Column equals StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline minus e Superscript negative x Baseline Over 2 EndFraction comma 2nd Row 1st Column a r c tangent x 2nd Column equals StartFraction 1 Over 2 i EndFraction log left parenthesis StartFraction 1 plus i x Over 1 minus i x EndFraction right parenthesis comma 3rd Column arg hyperbolic tangent x 4th Column equals one half log left parenthesis StartFraction 1 plus x Over 1 minus x EndFraction right parenthesis period EndLayout

There was therefore no need to specify them particularly in our definition.

The elementary transcendents have been further classified in a manner first indicated by Liouville[4]. According to him a function is a transcendent of the first order if the signs of exponentiation or of the taking of logarithms which occur in the formula which defines it apply only to rational or algebraical functions. For example x e Superscript minus sigma squared Baseline comma e Superscript x squared plus Baseline plus e Superscript x Baseline StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis log x right parenthesis are of the first order; and so is arc tangent StartFraction y Over StartRoot left parenthesis 1 plus x squared right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction comma[Pg 7] where y is defined by the equation y Superscript 5 Baseline minus y minus x equals 0 semicolon and so is the function y defined by the equation y Superscript 5 Baseline minus y minus e Superscript x Baseline log x equals 0 period

An elementary transcendent of the second order is one defined by a formula in which the exponentiations and takings of logarithms are applied to rational or algebraical functions or to transcendents of the first order. This class of functions includes many of great interest and importance, of which the simplest are e Superscript e Super Superscript x Superscript Baseline comma log log x period It also includes irrational and complex powers of x, since, e.g., x Superscript StartRoot EndRoot 2 Baseline equals e Superscript StartRoot EndRoot 2 log x Baseline comma x Superscript 1 plus i Baseline equals e Superscript left parenthesis 1 plus i right parenthesis log x Baseline semicolon the function x Superscript x Baseline equals e Superscript x log x Baseline semicolon and the logarithms of the circular functions.

It is of course presupposed in the definition of a transcendent of the second kind that the function in question is incapable of expression as one of the first kind or as a rational or algebraical function. The function e Superscript log upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis Baseline comma where upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis is rational, is not a transcendent of the second kind, since it can be expressed in the simpler form upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis.

It is obvious that we can in this way proceed to define transcendents of the nth order for all values of n. Thus log log log x comma log log log log x comma ellipsis ellipsis are of the third, fourth, ...... orders.

Of course a similar classification of algebraical functions can be and has been made. Thus we may say that StartRoot EndRoot x comma StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis x plus StartRoot EndRoot x right parenthesis comma StartRoot EndRoot left brace x plus StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis x plus StartRoot EndRoot x right parenthesis right brace comma ellipsis ellipsis are algebraical functions of the first, second, third, ...... orders. But the fact that there is a general theory of algebraical equations and therefore of implicit algebraical functions has deprived this classification of most of its importance. There is no such general theory of elementary transcendental equations[5], and therefore we shall not rank as 'elementary' functions defined by transcendental equations such as y equals x log y comma but incapable (as Liouville has shown that in this case y is incapable) of explicit expression in finite terms.

[Pg 8]

5. The preceding analysis of elementary transcendental functions rests on the following theorems:

(a) e Superscript x is not an algebraical function of x;

(b) log x is not an algebraical function of x;

(c) log x is not expressible in finite terms by means of signs of exponentiation and of algebraical operations, explicit or implicit[6];

(d) transcendental functions of the first, second, third, ... orders actually exist.

A proof of the first two theorems will be given later, but limitations of space will prevent us from giving detailed proofs of the third and fourth. Liouville has given interesting extensions of some of these theorems: he has proved, for example, that no equation of the form upper A e Superscript alpha p Baseline plus upper B e Superscript beta p Baseline plus ellipsis plus upper R e Superscript rho p Baseline equals upper S comma where p comma upper A comma upper B comma ellipsis comma upper R comma upper S are algebraical functions of x, and alpha comma beta comma ellipsis comma rho different constants, can hold for all values of x.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] An algebraical number is a number which is the root of an algebraical equation whose coefficients are integral. It is known that there are numbers (such as e and pi) which are not roots of any such equation. See, for example, Hobson's Squaring the circle (Cambridge, 1913).

[3] For fuller information the reader may be referred to Appell and Goursat's Théorie des fonctions algébriques.

[4] 'Mémoire sur la classification des transcendantes, et sur l'impossibilité d'exprimer les racines de certaines équations en fonction finie explicite des coefficients', Journal de mathématiques, ser. 1, vol. 2, 1837, pp. 56—104; 'Suite du mémoire...', ibid. vol. 3, 1838, pp. 523—546.

[5] The natural generalisations of the theory of algebraical equations are to be found in parts of the theory of differential equations. See Königsberger, 'Bemerkungen zu Liouville's Classificirung der Transcendenten', Math. Annalen, vol. 28, 1886, pp. 483—492.

[6] For example, log x cannot be equal to e Superscript y, where y is an algebraical function of x.


III. The integration of elementary functions. Summary of results

In the following pages we shall be concerned exclusively with the problem of the integration of elementary functions. We shall endeavour to give as complete an account as the space at our disposal permits of the progress which has been made by mathematicians towards the solution of the two following problems:

(i) if f left parenthesis x right parenthesis is an elementary function, how can we determine whether its integral is also an elementary function?

(ii) if the integral is an elementary function, how can we find it?

It would be unreasonable to expect complete answers to these questions. But sufficient has been done to give us a tolerably complete insight into the nature of the answers, and to ensure that it[Pg 9] shall not be difficult to find the complete answers in any particular case which is at all likely to occur in elementary analysis or in its applications.

It will probably be well for us at this point to summarise the principal results which have been obtained.

1. The integral of a rational function (iv.) is always an elementary function. It is either rational or the sum of a rational function and of a finite number of constant multiples of logarithms of rational functions (iv., 1).

If certain constants which are the roots of an algebraical equation are treated as known then the form of the integral can always be determined completely. But as the roots of such equations are not in general capable of explicit expression in finite terms, it is not in general possible to express the integral in an absolutely explicit form (iv.; 2, 3).

We can always determine, by means of a finite number of the elementary operations of addition, multiplication, and division, whether the integral is rational or not. If it is rational, we can determine it completely by means of such operations; if not, we can determine its rational part (iv.; 4, 5).

The solution of the problem in the case of rational functions may therefore be said to be complete; for the difficulty with regard to the explicit solution of algebraical equations is one not of inadequate knowledge but of proved impossibility (iv., 6).

2. The integral of an algebraical function (v.), explicit or implicit, may or may not be elementary.

If y is an algebraical function of x then the integral integral y d x, or, more generally, the integral integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis d x comma where upper R denotes a rational function, is, if an elementary function, either algebraical or the sum of an algebraical function and of a finite number of constant multiples of logarithms of algebraical functions. All algebraical functions which occur in the integral are rational functions of x and y (v.; 11—14, 18).

These theorems give a precise statement of a general principle enunciated by Laplace[7]: 'l'intégrale d'une fonction différentielle (algébrique) ne peut contenir d'autres quantités radicaux que celles qui entrent dans cette fonction}'; and, we may add, cannot contain exponentials at all.[Pg 10] Thus it is impossible that integral StartFraction d x Over StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis 1 plus x squared right parenthesis EndFraction should contain e Superscript x or StartRoot 1 minus x EndRoot: the appearance of these functions in the integral could only be apparent, and they could be eliminated before differentiation. Laplace's principle really rests on the fact, of which it is easy enough to convince oneself by a little reflection and the consideration of a few particular cases (though to give a rigorous proof is of course quite another matter), that differentiation will not eliminate exponentials or algebraical irrationalities. Nor, we may add, will it eliminate logarithms except when they occur in the simple form upper A log phi left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma where upper A is a constant, and this is why logarithms can only occur in this form in the integrals of rational or algebraical functions.

We have thus a general knowledge of the form of the integral of an algebraical function y, when it is itself an elementary function. Whether this is so or not of course depends on the nature of the equation f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 which defines y. If this equation, when interpreted as that of a curve in the plane left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis, represents a unicursal curve, i.e. a curve which has the maximum number of double points possible for a curve of its degree, or whose deficiency is zero, then x and y can be expressed simultaneously as rational functions of a third variable t, and the integral can be reduced by a substitution to that of a rational function (v.; 2, 7—9). In this case, therefore, the integral is always an elementary function. But this condition, though sufficient, is not necessary. It is in general true that, when f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 is not unicursal, the integral is not an elementary function but a new transcendent; and we are able to classify these transcendents according to the deficiency of the curve. If, for example, the deficiency is unity, then the integral is in general a transcendent of the kind known as elliptic integrals, whose characteristic is that they can be transformed into integrals containing no other irrationality than the square root of a polynomial of the third or fourth degree (v., 20). But there are infinitely many cases in which the integral can be expressed by algebraical functions and logarithms. Similarly there are infinitely many cases in which integrals associated with curves whose deficiency is greater[Pg 11] than unity are in reality reducible to elliptic integrals. Such abnormal cases have formed the subject of many exceedingly interesting researches, but no general method has been devised by which we can always tell, after a finite series of operations, whether any given integral is really elementary, or elliptic, or belongs to a higher order of transcendents.

When f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 is unicursal we can carry out the integration completely in exactly the same sense as in the case of rational functions. In particular, if the integral is algebraical then it can be found by means of elementary operations which are always practicable. And it has been shown, more generally, that we can always determine by means of such operations whether the integral of any given algebraical function is algebraical or not, and evaluate the integral when it is algebraical. And although the general problem of determining whether any given integral is an elementary function, and calculating it if it is one, has not been solved, the solution in the particular case in which the deficiency of the curve f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 is unity is as complete as it is reasonable to expect any possible solution to be.

3. The theory of the integration of transcendental functions (vi.) is naturally much less complete, and the number of classes of such functions for which general methods of integration exist is very small. These few classes are, however, of extreme importance in applications (vi.; 2, 3).

There is a general theorem concerning the form of an integral of a transcendental function, when it is itself an elementary function, which is quite analogous to those already stated for rational and algebraical functions. The general statement of this theorem will be found in vi., §5; it shows, for instance, that the integral of a rational function of x, e Superscript x and log x is either a rational function of those functions or the sum of such a rational function and of a finite number of constant multiples of logarithms of similar functions. From this general theorem may be deduced a number of more precise results concerning integrals of more special forms, such as integral y e Superscript x Baseline d x comma integral y log x d x comma where y is an algebraical function of x (vi.; 4, 6).

FOOTNOTES:

[7] Théorie analytique des probabilités, p. 7.


[Pg 12]

IV. Rational functions

1. It is proved in treatises on algebra[8] that any polynomial upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals b 0 x Superscript n Baseline plus b 1 x Superscript n minus 1 Baseline plus ellipsis plus b Subscript n can be expressed in the form b 0 left parenthesis x minus a 1 right parenthesis Superscript n 1 Baseline left parenthesis x minus a 2 right parenthesis Superscript n 2 Baseline ellipsis left parenthesis x minus a Subscript r Baseline right parenthesis Superscript n Super Subscript r Superscript Baseline comma where n 1 comma n 2 comma ellipsis are positive integers whose sum is n, and a 1 comma a 2 comma ellipsis, are constants; and that any rational function upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis, whose denominator is upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis, may be expressed in the form upper A 0 x Superscript p plus upper A 1 x Superscript p minus 1 plus ellipsis plus upper A Subscript p Baseline plus sigma summation Underscript s equals 1 Overscript r Endscripts left brace StartFraction beta Subscript s comma 1 Baseline Over x minus alpha Subscript s Baseline EndFraction plus StartFraction beta Subscript s Baseline .2 Baseline Over left parenthesis x minus alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis squared EndFraction plus ellipsis plus StartFraction beta Subscript s comma n Sub Subscript s Subscript Baseline Over left parenthesis x minus alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis Superscript n Super Subscript s Superscript Baseline EndFraction right brace where upper A 0 comma upper A 1 comma ellipsis comma beta Subscript s comma 1 Baseline comma ellipsis are also constants. It follows that StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column integral upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x equals upper A 0 StartFraction x Superscript p plus 1 Baseline Over p plus 1 EndFraction plus upper A 1 StartFraction x Superscript p Baseline Over p EndFraction plus ellipsis plus upper A Subscript p Baseline x plus upper C 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column plus sigma summation Underscript s equals 1 Overscript r Endscripts left brace beta Subscript s comma 1 Baseline log left parenthesis x minus a Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis minus StartFraction beta Subscript s comma 2 Baseline Over x minus alpha Subscript s Baseline EndFraction minus ellipsis minus StartFraction beta Subscript s comma n Sub Subscript s Subscript Baseline Over left parenthesis n Subscript s Baseline minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis Superscript n Super Subscript s Superscript minus 1 Baseline EndFraction right brace period EndLayout From this we conclude that the integral of any rational function is an elementary function which is rational save for the possible presence of logarithms of rational functions. In particular the integral will be rational if each of the numbers beta Subscript s comma 1 is zero: this condition is evidently necessary and sufficient. A necessary but not sufficient condition is that upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis should contain no simple factors.

The integral of the general rational function may be expressed in a very simple and elegant form by means of symbols of differentiation. We may suppose for simplicity that the degree of upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis is less than that of upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis; this can of course always be ensured by subtracting a polynomial from upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis. Then StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis 2nd Column equals StartFraction upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis EndFraction 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals StartFraction 1 Over left parenthesis n 1 minus 1 right parenthesis factorial left parenthesis n 2 minus 1 right parenthesis factorial ellipsis left parenthesis n Subscript r Baseline minus 1 right parenthesis factorial EndFraction ContinuedFraction partial differential Superscript n minus r Baseline Over partial differential alpha 1 Superscript n 1 minus 1 Baseline partial differential alpha 2 Superscript n 2 minus 1 Baseline ellipsis partial differential alpha Subscript r Superscript n Super Subscript r Superscript minus 1 Baseline StartFraction upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over upper Q 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis EndFraction comma EndLayout where upper Q 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals b 0 left parenthesis x minus alpha 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus alpha 2 right parenthesis ellipsis left parenthesis x minus alpha Subscript r Baseline right parenthesis period Now StartFraction upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over upper Q 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis EndFraction equals pi 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis plus sigma summation Underscript s equals 1 Overscript r Endscripts StartFraction upper P left parenthesis alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis Over left parenthesis x minus alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis upper Q prime 0 left parenthesis alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis EndFraction comma[Pg 13] where pi 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis is a polynomial; and so StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column integral upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals StartFraction 1 Over left parenthesis n 1 minus 1 right parenthesis factorial ellipsis left parenthesis n Subscript r Baseline minus 1 right parenthesis factorial EndFraction ContinuedFraction partial differential Superscript n minus r Baseline Over partial differential alpha 1 Superscript n 1 minus 1 Baseline ellipsis partial differential alpha Subscript r Superscript n Super Subscript r Superscript minus 1 Baseline left bracket normal upper Pi 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis plus sigma summation Underscript s equals 1 Overscript r Endscripts StartFraction upper P left parenthesis alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis Over upper Q prime 0 left parenthesis alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis EndFraction log left parenthesis x minus alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis right bracket comma EndLayout where normal upper Pi 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals integral pi 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x period But normal upper Pi left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals ContinuedFraction partial differential Superscript n minus r Baseline normal upper Pi 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over partial differential a 1 Superscript n 1 minus 1 Baseline partial differential a 2 Superscript n 2 minus 1 Baseline ellipsis partial differential a Subscript r Baseline Superscript n Baseline r Superscript negative 1 Baseline is also a polynomial, and the integral contains no polynomial term, since the degree of upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis is less than that of upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis. Thus normal upper Pi left parenthesis x right parenthesis must vanish identically, so that StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column integral upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x 2nd Row 1st Column equals 2nd Column StartFraction 1 Over left parenthesis n 1 minus 1 right parenthesis factorial ellipsis left parenthesis n Subscript r Baseline minus 1 right parenthesis factorial EndFraction ContinuedFraction partial differential Superscript n minus r Baseline Over partial differential alpha 1 Superscript n 1 minus 1 Baseline ellipsis partial differential a Subscript r Baseline Superscript n Super Subscript r Superscript minus 1 Baseline left bracket sigma summation Underscript s equals 1 Overscript r Endscripts StartFraction upper P left parenthesis alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis Over upper Q prime 0 left parenthesis alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis EndFraction log left parenthesis x minus alpha Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis right bracket period EndLayout

For example integral StartFraction d x Over left brace left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus b right parenthesis right brace squared EndFraction equals StartFraction partial differential squared Over partial differential a partial differential b EndFraction StartSet StartFraction 1 Over a minus b EndFraction log left parenthesis StartFraction x minus a Over x minus b EndFraction right parenthesis EndSet period

That normal upper Pi 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis is annihilated by the partial differentiations performed on it may be verified directly as follows. We obtain normal upper Pi 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis by picking out from the expansion StartFraction upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over x Superscript r Baseline EndFraction left parenthesis 1 plus StartFraction a 1 Over x EndFraction plus StartFraction a 1 squared Over x squared EndFraction plus ellipsis right parenthesis left parenthesis 1 plus StartFraction a 2 Over x EndFraction plus StartFraction a 2 squared Over x squared EndFraction plus ellipsis right parenthesis ellipsis ellipsis the terms which involve positive powers of x. Any such term is of the form upper A dot x Superscript nu minus r minus s 1 minus s 2 minus midline horizontal ellipsis Baseline a 1 Superscript s 1 Baseline a 2 Superscript s 2 Baseline ellipsis comma where s 1 plus s 2 plus ellipsis less than or slanted equals nu minus r less than or slanted equals m minus r comma m being the degree of upper P. It follows that s 1 plus s 2 plus ellipsis less than n minus r equals left parenthesis m 1 minus 1 right parenthesis plus left parenthesis m 2 minus 1 right parenthesis plus ellipsis semicolon so that at least one of s 1 comma s 2 comma ellipsis must be less than the corresponding one of m 1 minus 1 comma m 2 minus 1 comma ellipsis.

It has been assumed above that if upper F left parenthesis x comma alpha right parenthesis equals integral f left parenthesis x comma alpha right parenthesis d x comma then StartFraction partial differential upper F Over partial differential a EndFraction equals integral StartFraction partial differential f Over partial differential a EndFraction d x period[Pg 14] The first equation means that f equals StartFraction partial differential upper F Over partial differential x EndFraction and the second that StartFraction partial differential f Over partial differential alpha EndFraction equals StartFraction partial differential squared upper F Over partial differential x partial differential alpha EndFraction. As it follows from the first that StartFraction partial differential f Over partial differential a EndFraction equals StartFraction partial differential squared upper F Over partial differential a partial differential x EndFraction, what has really been assumed is that StartFraction partial differential squared upper F Over partial differential a partial differential x EndFraction equals StartFraction partial differential squared upper F Over partial differential x partial differential a EndFraction period It is known that this equation is always true for x equals x 0 comma a equals a 0 if a circle can be drawn in the plane of left parenthesis x comma a right parenthesis whose centre is left parenthesis x 0 comma a 0 right parenthesis and within which the differential coefficients are continuous.

2. It appears from §1 that the integral of a rational function is in general composed of two parts, one of which is a rational function and the other a function of the form normal upper Sigma upper A log left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis We may call these two functions the rational part and the transcendental part of the integral. It is evidently of great importance to show that the 'transcendental part' of the integral is really transcendental and cannot be expressed, wholly or in part, as a rational or algebraical function.

We are not yet in a position to prove this completely[9]; but we can take the first step in this direction by showing that no sum of the form (1) can be rational, unless every upper A is zero.

Suppose, if possible, that normal upper Sigma upper A log left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis equals StartFraction upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis EndFraction left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis where upper P and upper Q are polynomials without common factor. Then normal upper Sigma StartFraction upper A Over x minus a EndFraction equals StartFraction upper P prime upper Q minus upper P upper Q Superscript prime Baseline Over upper Q squared EndFraction left parenthesis 3 right parenthesis

Suppose now that left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis Superscript r is a factor of upper Q. Then upper P prime upper Q minus upper P upper Q prime is divisible by left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis Superscript r minus 1 and by no higher power of x minus p. Thus the right-hand side of (3), when expressed in its lowest terms, has a factor left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis Superscript r plus 1 in its denominator. On the other hand the left-hand side, when expressed as a rational fraction in its lowest terms, has no repeated factor in its denominator. Hence r equals 0, and so upper Q is a constant. We may therefore replace (2) by sigma summation upper A log left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis equals upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma and (3) by sigma summation StartFraction upper A Over x minus a EndFraction equals upper P prime left parenthesis x right parenthesis period [Pg 15]Multiplying by x minus a, and making x tend to a, we see that upper A equals 0.

3. The method of §1 gives a complete solution of the problem if the roots of upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals 0 can be determined; and in practice this is usually the case. But this case, though it is the one which occurs most frequently in practice, is from a theoretical point of view an exceedingly special case. The roots of upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals 0 are not in general explicit algebraical functions of the coefficients, and cannot as a rule be determined in any explicit form. The method of partial fractions is therefore subject to serious limitations. For example, we cannot determine, by the method of decomposition into partial fractions, such an integral as integral StartFraction 4 x Superscript 9 Baseline plus 21 x Superscript 6 Baseline plus 2 x cubed minus 3 x squared minus 3 Over left parenthesis x Superscript 7 Baseline minus x plus 1 right parenthesis squared EndFraction d x comma or even determine whether the integral is rational or not, although it is in reality a very simple function. A high degree of importance therefore attaches to the further problem of determining the integral of a given rational function so far as possible in an absolutely explicit form and by means of operations which are always practicable.

It is easy to see that a complete solution of this problem cannot be looked for.

Suppose for example that upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis reduces to unity, and that upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals 0 is an equation of the fifth degree, whose roots a 1 comma a 2 comma ellipsis a 5 are all distinct and not capable of explicit algebraical expression.

Then StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column integral upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x 2nd Column equals sigma summation Underscript 1 Overscript 5 Endscripts StartFraction log left parenthesis x minus a 8 right parenthesis Over upper Q prime Superscript left parenthesis Baseline a 8 right parenthesis EndFraction 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals log normal upper Pi 1 Superscript 5 Baseline left brace left parenthesis x minus a 8 right parenthesis Superscript StartFraction 1 Over upper Q Super Superscript prime left parenthesis Superscript a 8 right parenthesis EndFraction Baseline right brace comma EndLayout and it is only if at least two of the numbers upper Q prime left parenthesis a 8 right parenthesis are commensurable that any two or more of the factors left parenthesis x minus a Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis Superscript StartFraction 1 Over upper Q prime left parenthesis a Super Subscript s Superscript right parenthesis EndFraction can be associated so as to give a single term of the type upper A log upper S left parenthesis x right parenthesis, where upper S left parenthesis x right parenthesis is rational. In general this will not be the case, and so it will not be possible to express the integral in any finite form which does not explicitly involve the roots. A more precise result in this connection will be proved later (§6).

4. The first and most important part of the problem has been solved by Hermite, who has shown that the rational part of the integral can always be determined without a knowledge of the roots of upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis, and indeed without the performance of any operations other than those of elementary algebra[10].

[Pg 16]

Hermite's method depends upon a fundamental theorem in elementary algebra[11] which is also of great importance in the ordinary theory of partial fractions, viz.:

'If upper X 1 and upper X 2 are two polynomials in x which have no common factor, and upper X 3 any third polynomial, then we can determine two polynomials upper A 1, upper A 2, such that upper A 1 upper X 1 plus upper A 2 upper X 2 equals upper X 3 period right single quotation mark

Suppose that upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals upper Q 1 upper Q 2 squared upper Q 3 cubed ellipsis upper Q Subscript t Superscript t Baseline comma upper Q 1 comma ellipsis denoting polynomials which have only simple roots and of which no two have any common factor. We can always determine upper Q 1 comma ellipsis by elementary methods, as is shown in the elements of the theory of equations[12].

We can determine upper B and upper A 1 so that upper B upper Q 1 plus upper A 1 upper Q 2 squared upper Q 3 cubed ellipsis upper Q Subscript t Superscript t Baseline equals upper P comma and therefore so that upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals StartFraction upper P Over upper Q EndFraction equals StartFraction upper A 1 Over upper Q 1 EndFraction plus ContinuedFraction upper B Over upper Q 2 squared upper Q 3 cubed ellipsis upper Q Subscript t Superscript t Baseline period By a repetition of this process we can express upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis in the form StartFraction upper A 1 Over upper Q 1 EndFraction plus StartFraction upper A 2 Over upper Q 2 squared EndFraction plus ellipsis plus StartFraction upper A Subscript t Baseline Over upper Q Subscript t Superscript t Baseline EndFraction comma and the problem of the integration of upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis is reduced to that of the integration of a function StartFraction upper A Over upper Q Superscript nu Baseline EndFraction comma where upper Q is a polynomial whose roots are all distinct. Since this is so, upper Q and its derived function upper Q prime have no common factor: we can therefore determine upper C and upper D so that upper C upper Q plus upper D upper Q Superscript prime Baseline equals upper A period Hence StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column integral StartFraction upper A Over upper Q Superscript nu Baseline EndFraction d x 2nd Column equals integral StartFraction upper C upper Q plus upper D upper Q prime Over upper Q Superscript nu Baseline EndFraction d x 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals integral StartFraction upper C Over upper Q Superscript nu minus 1 Baseline EndFraction d x minus StartFraction 1 Over nu minus 1 EndFraction integral upper D StartFraction d Over d x EndFraction left parenthesis StartFraction 1 Over upper Q Superscript nu minus 1 Baseline EndFraction right parenthesis d x 3rd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals minus StartFraction upper D Over left parenthesis nu minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis upper Q Superscript nu minus 1 Baseline EndFraction plus integral StartFraction upper E Over upper Q Superscript nu minus 1 Baseline EndFraction d x EndLayout where upper E equals upper C plus StartFraction upper D prime Over v minus 1 EndFraction period[Pg 17] Proceeding in this way, and reducing by unity at each step the power of StartFraction 1 Over upper Q EndFraction which figures under the sign of integration, we ultimately arrive at an equation integral StartFraction upper A Over upper Q Superscript nu Baseline EndFraction d x equals upper R Subscript nu Baseline left parenthesis x right parenthesis plus integral StartFraction upper S Over upper Q EndFraction d x comma where upper R Subscript nu is a rational function and upper S a polynomial.

The integral on the right-hand side has no rational part, since all the roots of upper Q are simple (§2). Thus the rational part of integral upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x is upper R 2 left parenthesis x right parenthesis plus upper R 3 left parenthesis x right parenthesis plus ellipsis plus upper R Subscript t Baseline left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma and it has been determined without the need of any calculations other than those involved in the addition, multiplication and division of polynomials[13].

5. (i) Let us consider, for example, the integral integral StartFraction 4 x Superscript 9 Baseline plus 21 x Superscript 6 Baseline plus 2 x cubed minus 3 x squared minus 3 Over left parenthesis x Superscript 7 Baseline minus x plus 1 right parenthesis squared EndFraction d x mentioned above (§3). We require polynomials upper A 1 comma upper A 2 such that upper A 1 upper X 1 plus upper A 2 upper X 2 equals upper X 3 comma left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis where upper X 1 equals x Superscript 7 Baseline minus x plus 1 comma upper X 2 equals 7 x Superscript 6 Baseline minus 1 comma upper X 3 equals 4 x Superscript 9 Baseline plus 21 x Superscript 6 Baseline plus 2 x cubed minus 3 x squared minus 3 period

In general, if the degrees of upper X 1 and upper X 2 are m 1 and m 2, and that of upper X 3 does not exceed m 1 plus m 2 minus 1, we can suppose that the degrees of upper A 1 and upper A 2 do not exceed m 2 minus 1 and m 1 minus 1 respectively. For we know that polynomials upper B 1 and upper B 2 exist such that upper B 1 upper X 1 plus upper B 2 upper X 2 equals upper X 3 period If upper B 1 is of degree not exceeding m 2 minus 1, we take upper A 1 equals upper B 1, and if it is of higher degree we write upper B 1 equals upper L 1 upper X 2 plus upper A 1 comma where upper A 1 is of degree not exceeding m 2 minus 1. Similarly we write upper B 2 equals upper L 2 upper X 1 plus upper A 2 period We have then left parenthesis upper L 1 plus upper L 2 right parenthesis upper X 1 upper X 2 plus upper A 1 upper X 1 plus upper A 2 upper X 2 equals upper X 3 period In this identity upper L 1 or upper L 2 or both may vanish identically, and in any case we see, by equating to zero the coefficients of the powers of x higher than the left parenthesis m 1 plus m 2 minus 1 right parenthesisth, that upper L 1 plus upper L 2 vanishes identically. Thus upper X 3 is expressed in the form required.

The actual determination of the coefficients in upper A 1 and upper A 2 is most easily performed by equating coefficients. We have then m 1 plus m 2[Pg 18] linear equations in the same number of unknowns. These equations must be consistent, since we know that a solution exists[14].

If upper X 3 is of degree higher than m 1 plus m 2 minus 1, we must divide it by upper X 1 upper X 2 and express the remainder in the form required.

In this case we may suppose upper A 1 of degree 5 and upper A 2 of degree 6, and we find that upper A 1 equals minus 3 x squared comma upper A 2 equals x cubed plus 3 period Thus the rational part of the integral is minus StartFraction x cubed plus 3 Over x Superscript 7 Baseline minus x plus 1 EndFraction comma and, since minus 3 x squared plus left parenthesis x cubed plus 3 right parenthesis Superscript prime Baseline equals 0, there is no transcendental part.

(ii) The following problem is instructive: to find the conditions that integral StartFraction a x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma Over left parenthesis upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C right parenthesis squared EndFraction d x may be rational, and to determine the integral when it is rational.

We shall suppose that upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C is not a perfect square, as if it were the integral would certainly be rational. We can determine p comma q and r so that p left parenthesis upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C right parenthesis plus 2 left parenthesis q x plus r right parenthesis left parenthesis upper A x plus upper B right parenthesis equals a x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma comma and the integral becomes StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column p integral StartFraction d x Over upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C EndFraction minus integral 2nd Column left parenthesis q x plus r right parenthesis StartFraction d Over d x EndFraction left parenthesis StartFraction 1 Over upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C EndFraction right parenthesis d x 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals minus StartFraction q x plus r Over upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C EndFraction plus left parenthesis p plus q right parenthesis integral StartFraction d x Over upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C EndFraction EndLayout The condition that the integral should be rational is therefore p plus q equals 0.

Equating coefficients we find upper A left parenthesis p plus 2 q right parenthesis equals alpha comma upper B left parenthesis p plus q right parenthesis plus upper A r equals beta comma upper C p plus 2 upper B r equals gamma period Hence we deduce p equals minus StartFraction alpha Over upper A EndFraction comma q equals StartFraction alpha Over upper A EndFraction comma r equals StartFraction alpha Over upper A EndFraction comma and upper A gamma plus upper C alpha equals 2 upper B beta. The condition required is therefore that the two quadratics alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma and upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C should be harmonically related, and in this case integral StartFraction alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma Over left parenthesis upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C right parenthesis squared EndFraction d x equals minus StartFraction alpha x plus beta Over upper A left parenthesis upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C right parenthesis EndFraction period

(iii) Another method of solution of this problem is as follows. If we write upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C equals upper A left parenthesis x minus lamda right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus mu right parenthesis comma and use the bilinear substitution x equals StartFraction lamda y plus mu Over y plus 1 EndFraction comma then the integral is reduced to one of the form integral StartFraction a y squared plus 2 b y plus c Over y squared EndFraction d y comma[Pg 19] and is rational if and only if b equals 0. But this is the condition that the quadratic a y squared plus 2 b y plus c, corresponding to alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma, should be harmonically related to the degenerate quadratic y, corresponding to upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C. The result now follows from the fact that harmonic relations are not changed by bilinear transformation.

It is not difficult to show, by an adaptation of this method, that integral StartFraction left parenthesis alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma right parenthesis left parenthesis alpha 1 x squared plus 2 beta 1 x plus gamma 1 right parenthesis ellipsis left parenthesis alpha Subscript n Baseline x squared plus 2 beta Subscript n Baseline x plus gamma Subscript n Baseline right parenthesis Over left parenthesis upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C right parenthesis Superscript n plus 2 Baseline EndFraction d x is rational if all the quadratics are harmonically related to any one of those in the numerator. This condition is sufficient but not necessary.

(iv) As a further example of the use of the method (ii) the reader may show that the necessary and sufficient condition that integral StartFraction f left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over left brace upper F left parenthesis x right parenthesis right brace squared EndFraction d x comma where f and upper F are polynomials with no common factor, and upper F has no repeated factor, should be rational, is that f prime upper F prime minus f upper F double prime should be divisible by upper F.

6. It appears from the preceding paragraphs that we can always find the rational part of the integral, and can find the complete integral if we can find the roots of upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals 0. The question is naturally suggested as to the maximum of information which can be obtained about the logarithmic part of the integral in the general case in which the factors of the denominator cannot be determined explicitly. For there are polynomials which, although they cannot be completely resolved into such factors, can nevertheless be partially resolved. For example StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column x Superscript 14 Baseline minus 2 x Superscript 8 Baseline minus 2 x Superscript 7 Baseline minus x Superscript 4 Baseline minus 2 x cubed plus 2 x plus 1 equals left parenthesis x Superscript 7 Baseline plus x squared minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis x Superscript 7 Baseline minus x squared minus 2 x minus 1 right parenthesis comma 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column x Superscript 14 Baseline minus 2 x Superscript 8 Baseline minus 2 x Superscript 7 Baseline minus 2 x Superscript 4 Baseline minus 4 x cubed minus x squared plus 2 x plus 1 3rd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals left brace x Superscript 7 Baseline plus x squared StartRoot EndRoot 2 plus x left parenthesis StartRoot EndRoot 2 minus 1 right parenthesis minus 1 right brace left brace x Superscript 7 Baseline minus x squared StartRoot EndRoot 2 minus x left parenthesis StartRoot EndRoot 2 plus 1 right parenthesis minus 1 right brace period EndLayout The factors of the first polynomial have rational coefficients: in the language of the theory of equations, the polynomial is reducible in the rational domain. The second polynomial is reducible in the domain formed by the adjunction of the single irrational StartRoot 2 EndRoot to the rational domain[15].

We may suppose that every possible decomposition of upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis of this nature has been made, so that upper Q equals upper Q 1 upper Q 2 ellipsis upper Q Subscript t Baseline period[Pg 20] Then we can resolve upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis into a sum of partial fractions of the type integral StartFraction upper P Subscript nu Baseline Over upper Q Subscript nu Baseline EndFraction d x comma and so we need only consider integrals of the type integral StartFraction upper P Over upper Q EndFraction d x comma where no further resolution of upper Q is possible or, in technical language, upper Q is irreducible by the adjunction of any algebraical irrationality.

Suppose that this integral can be evaluated in a form involving only constants which can be expressed explicitly in terms of the constants which occur in upper P divided by upper Q. It must be of the form upper A 1 log upper X 1 plus ellipsis plus upper A Subscript k Baseline log upper X Subscript k Baseline comma left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis where the upper A's are constants and the upper X's polynomials. We can suppose that no upper X has any repeated factor xi Superscript m, where xi is a polynomial. For such a factor could be determined rationally in terms of the coefficients of upper X, and the expression (1) could then be modified by taking out the factor xi Superscript m from upper X and inserting a new term m upper A log xi. And for similar reasons we can suppose that no two upper X's have any factor in common.

Now StartFraction upper P Over upper Q EndFraction equals upper A 1 StartFraction upper X prime 1 Over upper X 1 EndFraction plus upper A 2 StartFraction upper X prime 2 Over upper X 2 EndFraction plus ellipsis plus upper A Subscript k Baseline StartFraction upper X prime Subscript k Baseline Over upper X Subscript k Baseline EndFraction comma or upper P upper X 1 upper X 2 ellipsis upper X Subscript k Baseline equals upper Q sigma summation upper A Subscript nu Baseline upper X 1 ellipsis upper X Subscript nu minus 1 Baseline upper X prime Subscript nu Baseline upper X Subscript nu plus 1 Baseline ellipsis upper X Subscript k Baseline period All the terms under the sign of summation are divisible by upper X 1 save the first, which is prime to upper X 1. Hence upper Q must be divisible by upper X 1: and similarly, of course, by upper X 2 comma upper X 3 comma ellipsis comma upper X Subscript k Baseline. But, since upper P is prime to upper Q, upper X 1 upper X 2 ellipsis upper X Subscript k Baseline is divisible by upper Q. Thus upper Q must be a constant multiple of upper X 1 upper X 2 ellipsis upper X Subscript k Baseline. But upper Q is ex hypothesi not resoluble into factors which contain only explicit algebraical irrationalities. Hence all the upper X's save one must reduce to constants, and so upper P must be a constant multiple of upper Q prime, and integral StartFraction upper P Over upper Q EndFraction d x equals upper A log upper Q comma where upper A is a constant. Unless this is the case the integral cannot be expressed in a form involving only constants expressed explicitly in terms of the constants which occur in upper P and upper Q.

Thus, for instance, the integral integral StartFraction d x Over x Superscript 5 Baseline plus a x plus b EndFraction[Pg 21] cannot, except in special cases[16], be expressed in a form involving only constants expressed explicitly in terms of a and b; and the integral integral StartFraction 5 x Superscript 4 Baseline plus c Over x Superscript 5 Baseline plus a x plus b EndFraction d x can in general be so expressed if and only if c equals a. We thus confirm an inference made before (§3) in a less accurate way.

Before quitting this part of our subject we may consider one further problem: under what circumstances is integral upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x equals upper A log upper R 1 left parenthesis x right parenthesis where upper A is a constant and upper R 1 rational? Since the integral has no rational part, it is clear that upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis must have only simple factors, and that the degree of upper P left parenthesis x right parenthesis must be less than that of upper Q left parenthesis x right parenthesis. We may therefore use the formula x equals log product Underscript 1 Overscript r Endscripts left brace left parenthesis x minus alpha 8 right parenthesis Superscript StartFraction upper P left parenthesis alpha 8 right parenthesis Over upper Q prime left parenthesis alpha 8 right parenthesis EndFraction Baseline right brace period The necessary and sufficient condition is that all the numbers StartFraction upper P left parenthesis alpha 8 right parenthesis Over upper Q prime left parenthesis alpha 8 right parenthesis EndFraction should be commensurable. If e.g. upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals StartFraction x minus gamma Over left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus beta right parenthesis EndFraction comma then StartFraction left parenthesis alpha minus gamma right parenthesis Over left parenthesis alpha minus beta right parenthesis EndFraction right parenthesis and StartFraction left parenthesis beta minus gamma right parenthesis Over left parenthesis beta minus alpha right parenthesis EndFraction must be commensurable, i.e. StartFraction left parenthesis alpha minus gamma right parenthesis Over left parenthesis beta minus gamma right parenthesis EndFraction must be a rational number. If the denominator is given we can find all the values of gamma which are admissible: for gamma equals StartFraction left parenthesis alpha q minus beta p right parenthesis Over left parenthesis q minus p right parenthesis EndFraction, where p and q are integers.

7. Our discussion of the integration of rational functions is now complete. It has been throughout of a theoretical character. We have not attempted to consider what are the simplest and quickest methods for the actual calculation of the types of integral which occur most commonly in practice. This problem lies outside our present range: the reader may consult

O. Stolz, Grundzüge der Differential- und Integralrechnung, vol. 1, ch. 7:

J. Tannery, Leçons d'algèbre et d'analyse, vol. 2, ch. 18:

Ch.-J. de la Vallée-Poussin, Cours d'analyse, ed. 3, vol. 1, ch. 5:

T. J. l'A. Bromwich, Elementary integrals (Bowes and Bowes, 1911):

G. H. Hardy, A course of pure mathematics, ed. 2, ch. 6.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] See, e.g., Weber's Traité d'algèbre supérieure (French translation by J. Griess, Paris, 1898), vol. 1, pp. 61—64, 143—149, 350—353; or Chrystal's Algebra, vol. 1, pp. 151—162.

[9] The proof will be completed in v., 16.

[10] The following account of Hermite's method is taken in substance from Goursat's Cours d'analyse mathématique (first edition), t. 1, pp. 238—241.

[11] See Chrystal's Algebra, vol. 1, pp. 119 et seq.

[12] See, for example, Hardy, A course of pure mathematics (2nd edition), p. 208.

[13] The operation of forming the derived function of a given polynomial can of course be effected by a combination of these operations.

[14] It is easy to show that the solution is also unique.

[15] See Cajori, An introduction to the modern theory of equations (Macmillan, 1904); Mathews, Algebraic equations (Cambridge tracts in mathematics, no. 6), pp. 6—7.

[Pg 22]

[16] The equation x Superscript 5 Baseline plus a x plus b equals 0 is soluble by radicals in certain cases. See Mathews, l.c., pp. 52 et seq.


V. Algebraical Functions

1. We shall now consider the integrals of algebraical functions, explicit or implicit. The theory of the integration of such functions is far more extensive and difficult than that of rational functions, and we can give here only a brief account of a few of the most important results and of the most obvious of their applications.

If y 1 comma y 2 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline are algebraical functions of x, then any algebraical function z of x, x comma y 1 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline is an algebraical function of x. This is obvious if we confine ourselves to explicit algebraical functions. In the general case we have a number of equations of the type upper P Subscript nu comma 0 Baseline left parenthesis x right parenthesis y Subscript nu Superscript m Super Subscript nu Superscript Baseline plus upper P Subscript nu comma 1 Baseline left parenthesis x right parenthesis y Subscript nu Superscript m Super Subscript nu Superscript minus 1 Baseline plus ellipsis plus upper P Subscript nu comma m Sub Subscript nu Subscript Baseline left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals 0 left parenthesis nu equals 1 comma 2 comma ellipsis comma n right parenthesis comma and upper P Subscript nu comma 0 Baseline left parenthesis x right parenthesis y Subscript nu Superscript m nu Baseline plus upper P Subscript nu comma 1 Baseline left parenthesis x right parenthesis y Subscript nu Superscript m nu minus 1 Baseline plus ellipsis plus upper P Subscript nu comma m Sub Subscript nu Subscript Baseline left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals 0 left parenthesis nu equals 1 comma 2 comma ellipsis comma n right parenthesis comma where the upper P's represent polynomials in their arguments. The elimination of y 1 comma y 2 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline between these equations gives an equation in z whose coefficients are polynomials in x only.

The importance of this from our present point of view lies in the fact that we may consider the standard algebraical integral under any of the forms integral y d x comma where f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0; integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis d x comma where f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 and upper R is rational; or integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y 1 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline right parenthesis d x comma where f 1 left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 comma ellipsis comma f Subscript n Baseline left parenthesis x comma y Subscript n Baseline right parenthesis equals 0. It is, for example, much more convenient to treat such an irrational as StartFraction x minus StartRoot x plus 1 EndRoot minus StartRoot x minus 1 EndRoot Over 1 plus StartRoot x plus 1 EndRoot plus StartRoot x minus 1 EndRoot EndFraction as a rational function of x, x comma y 1 comma y 2, where y 1 equals StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis x plus 1 right parenthesis comma y 2 equals StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis x minus 1 right parenthesis, y 1 squared equals x plus 1 comma y 2 squared equals x minus 1, than as a rational function of x and y, where StartLayout 1st Row  y equals StartRoot x plus 1 EndRoot plus StartRoot x minus 1 EndRoot comma 2nd Row  y Superscript 4 Baseline minus 4 x y squared plus 4 equals 0 period EndLayout To treat it as a simple irrational y, so that our fundamental equation is left parenthesis x minus y right parenthesis Superscript 4 Baseline minus 4 x left parenthesis x minus y right parenthesis squared left parenthesis 1 plus y right parenthesis squared plus 4 left parenthesis 1 plus y right parenthesis Superscript 4 Baseline equals 0 is evidently the least convenient course of all.

[Pg 23]

Before we proceed to consider the general form of the integral of an algebraical function we shall consider one most important case in which the integral can be at once reduced to that of a rational function, and is therefore always an elementary function itself.

2. The class of integrals alluded to immediately above is that covered by the following theorem.

If there is a variable t connected with x and y (or y 1 comma y 2 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline) by rational relations x equals upper R 1 left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma y equals upper R 2 left parenthesis t right parenthesis (or y 1 equals upper R 2 Superscript left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis Baseline left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma y 2 equals upper R 2 Superscript left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis Baseline left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma ellipsis), then the integral integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis d x (or integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y 1 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline right parenthesis d x) is an elementary function.

The truth of this proposition follows immediately from the equations StartLayout 1st Row  upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals upper R left brace upper R 1 left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma upper R 2 left parenthesis t right parenthesis right brace equals upper S left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma 2nd Row  StartFraction d x Over d t EndFraction equals upper R prime 1 left parenthesis t right parenthesis equals upper T left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma 3rd Row  integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis d x equals integral upper S left parenthesis t right parenthesis upper T left parenthesis t right parenthesis d t equals integral upper U left parenthesis t right parenthesis d t comma EndLayout where all the capital letters denote rational functions.

The most important case of this theorem is that in which x and y are connected by the general quadratic relation left parenthesis a comma b comma c comma f comma g comma h between x comma y comma 1 right parenthesis squared equals 0 period The integral can then be made rational in an infinite number of ways. For suppose that left parenthesis xi comma eta right parenthesis is any point on the conic, and that left parenthesis y minus eta right parenthesis equals t left parenthesis x minus xi right parenthesis is any line through the point. If we eliminate y between these equations, we obtain an equation of the second degree in x, say upper T 0 x squared plus 2 upper T 1 x plus upper T 2 equals 0 comma where upper T 0 comma upper T 1 comma upper T 2 are polynomials in t. But one root of this equation must be xi, which is independent of t; and when we divide by x minus xi we obtain an equation of the first degree for the abscissa of the variable point of intersection, in which the coefficients are again polynomials in t. Hence this abscissa is a rational function of t; the ordinate of the point is also a rational function of t, and as t varies this point[Pg 24] coincides with every point of the conic in turn. In fact the equation of the conic may be written in the form a u squared plus 2 h u v plus b v squared plus 2 left parenthesis a xi plus h eta plus g right parenthesis u plus 2 left parenthesis h xi plus b eta plus f right parenthesis v equals 0 comma where u equals x minus xi comma v equals y minus eta, and the other point of intersection of the line v equals t u and the conic is given by StartLayout 1st Row  x equals xi minus StartFraction 2 left brace a xi plus h eta plus g plus t left parenthesis h xi plus b eta plus f right parenthesis right brace Over a plus 2 h t plus b t squared EndFraction comma 2nd Row  y equals eta minus StartFraction 2 t left brace a xi plus h eta plus g plus t left parenthesis h xi plus b eta plus f right parenthesis right brace Over a plus 2 h t plus b t squared EndFraction period EndLayout

An alternative method is to write a x squared plus 2 h x y plus b y squared equals b left parenthesis y minus mu x right parenthesis left parenthesis y minus mu prime x right parenthesis comma so that y minus mu x equals 0 and y minus mu prime x equals 0 are parallel to the asymptotes of the conic, and to put y minus mu x equals t period Then y minus mu prime x equals minus StartFraction 2 g x plus 2 f y plus c Over b t EndFraction semicolon and from these two equations we can calculate x and y as rational functions of t. The principle of this method is of course the same as that of the former method: left parenthesis xi comma eta right parenthesis is now at infinity, and the pencil of lines through left parenthesis xi comma eta right parenthesis is replaced by a pencil parallel to an asymptote.

The most important case is that in which b equals negative 1, f equals h equals 0, so that y squared equals a x squared plus 2 g x plus c period The integral is then made rational by the substitution x equals xi minus StartFraction 2 left parenthesis a xi plus g minus t eta right parenthesis Over a minus t squared EndFraction comma y equals eta minus StartFraction 2 t left parenthesis a xi plus g minus t eta right parenthesis Over a minus t squared EndFraction where xi, eta are any numbers such that eta squared equals a xi squared plus 2 g xi plus c period We may for instance suppose that xi equals 0, eta equals StartRoot c EndRoot; or that eta equals 0, while xi is a root of the equation a xi squared plus 2 g xi plus c equals 0. Or again the integral is made rational by putting y minus x StartRoot a EndRoot equals t, when x equals minus StartFraction t squared minus c Over 2 left parenthesis t StartRoot a EndRoot minus g right parenthesis EndFraction comma y equals StartFraction left parenthesis t squared plus c right parenthesis StartRoot a EndRoot minus 2 g t Over 2 left parenthesis t StartRoot a EndRoot minus g right parenthesis EndFraction period

3. We shall now consider in more detail the problem of the calculation of integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis d x comma where[17][Pg 25] y equals StartRoot upper X EndRoot equals StartRoot left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis EndRoot period The most interesting case is that in which a, b, c and the constants which occur in upper R are real, and we shall confine our attention to this case.

Let upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals StartFraction upper P left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis Over upper Q left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis EndFraction comma where upper P and upper Q are polynomials. Then, by means of the equation y squared equals a x squared plus 2 b x plus c comma upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis may be reduced to the form StartFraction upper A plus upper B StartRoot upper X EndRoot Over upper C plus upper D StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction equals StartFraction left parenthesis upper A plus upper B StartRoot upper X EndRoot right parenthesis left parenthesis upper C minus upper D StartRoot upper X EndRoot right parenthesis Over upper C squared minus upper D squared upper X EndFraction comma where upper A, upper B, upper C, upper D are polynomials in x; and so to the form upper M plus upper N StartRoot upper X EndRoot, where upper M and upper N are rational, or (what is the same thing) the form upper P plus StartFraction upper Q Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction comma where upper P and upper Q are rational. The rational part may be integrated by the methods of section iv., and the integral integral StartFraction upper Q Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x may be reduced to the sum of a number of integrals of the forms integral StartFraction x Superscript r Baseline Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x comma integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis Superscript r Baseline StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction comma integral StartFraction xi x plus eta Over left parenthesis alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma right parenthesis Superscript r Baseline StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x comma left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis where p, xi, eta, alpha, beta, gamma are real constants and r a positive integer. The result is generally required in an explicitly real form: and, as further progress depends on transformations involving p (or alpha, beta, gamma), it is generally not advisable to break up a quadratic factor alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma into its constituent linear factors when these factors are complex.

All of the integrals (1) may be reduced, by means of elementary formulae of reduction[18], to dependence upon three fundamental integrals, viz. integral StartFraction d x Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction comma integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction comma integral StartFraction xi x plus eta Over left parenthesis alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma right parenthesis StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x period left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis

4. The first of these integrals may be reduced, by a substitution of the type x equals t plus k, to one or other of the three standard forms integral StartFraction d t Over StartRoot m squared minus t squared EndRoot EndFraction comma integral StartFraction d t Over StartRoot t squared plus m squared EndRoot EndFraction comma integral StartFraction d t Over StartRoot t squared minus m squared EndRoot EndFraction comma where m greater than 0. These integrals may be rationalised by the substitutions t equals StartFraction 2 m u Over 1 plus u squared EndFraction comma t equals StartFraction 2 m u Over 1 minus u squared EndFraction comma t equals StartFraction m left parenthesis 1 plus u squared right parenthesis Over 2 u EndFraction semicolon but it is simpler to use the transcendental substitutions t equals m sine phi comma t equals m hyperbolic sine phi comma t equals m hyperbolic cosine phi period[Pg 26] These last substitutions are generally the most convenient for the reduction of an integral which contains one or other of the irrationalities StartRoot left parenthesis m squared minus t squared right parenthesis EndRoot comma StartRoot left parenthesis t squared plus m squared right parenthesis EndRoot comma StartRoot left parenthesis t squared minus m squared right parenthesis EndRoot comma though the alternative substitutions t equals m hyperbolic tangent phi comma t equals m tangent phi comma t equals m secant phi are often useful.

It has been pointed out by Dr Bromwich that the forms usually given in text-books for these three standard integrals, viz. arc sine StartFraction t Over m EndFraction comma hyperbolic sine StartFraction t Over m EndFraction comma hyperbolic cosine StartFraction t Over m EndFraction are not quite accurate. It is obvious, for example, that the first two of these functions are odd functions of m, while the corresponding integrals are even functions. The correct formulae are arc sine StartFraction t Over StartAbsoluteValue m EndAbsoluteValue EndFraction comma hyperbolic sine StartFraction t Over StartAbsoluteValue m EndAbsoluteValue EndFraction equals log StartFraction t plus StartRoot t squared plus m squared EndRoot Over StartAbsoluteValue m EndAbsoluteValue EndFraction and plus or minus hyperbolic cosine StartFraction StartAbsoluteValue t EndAbsoluteValue Over StartAbsoluteValue m EndAbsoluteValue EndFraction equals log StartAbsoluteValue StartFraction t plus StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis t squared minus m squared right parenthesis Over m EndFraction EndAbsoluteValue comma where the ambiguous sign is the same as that of t. It is in some ways more convenient to use the equivalent forms arc tangent StartFraction t Over StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis m squared minus t squared right parenthesis EndFraction comma hyperbolic tangent StartFraction t Over StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis t squared plus m squared right parenthesis EndFraction comma hyperbolic tangent StartFraction t Over StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis t squared minus m squared right parenthesis EndFraction

5. The integral integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction may be evaluated in a variety of ways.

If p is a root of the equation upper X equals 0, then upper X may be written in the form a left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus q right parenthesis, and the value of the integral is given by one or other of the formulae StartLayout 1st Row  integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis StartRoot left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus q right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction equals StartFraction 2 Over q minus p EndFraction StartRoot StartFraction x minus q Over x minus p EndFraction EndRoot comma 2nd Row  integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis Superscript 5 divided by 2 Baseline EndFraction equals minus StartFraction 2 Over 3 left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis Superscript 3 divided by 2 Baseline EndFraction period EndLayout We may therefore suppose that p is not a root of upper X equals 0.

(i) We may follow the general method described above, taking[19] xi equals p comma eta equals StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis a p squared plus 2 b p plus c right parenthesis period Eliminating y from the equations y squared equals a x squared plus 2 b x plus c comma y minus eta equals t left parenthesis x minus xi right parenthesis comma and dividing by x minus xi, we obtain t squared left parenthesis x minus xi right parenthesis plus 2 eta t minus a left parenthesis x plus xi right parenthesis minus 2 b equals 0 comma and so minus StartFraction 2 d t Over t squared minus a EndFraction equals StartFraction d x Over t left parenthesis x minus xi right parenthesis plus eta EndFraction equals StartFraction d x Over y EndFraction period

[Pg 27]

Hence integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus xi right parenthesis y EndFraction equals minus 2 integral StartFraction d t Over left parenthesis x minus xi right parenthesis left parenthesis t squared minus alpha right parenthesis EndFraction period But left parenthesis t squared minus a right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus xi right parenthesis equals 2 a xi plus 2 b minus 2 eta t semicolon and so StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis y EndFraction equals minus integral StartFraction d t Over a xi plus b minus eta t EndFraction 2nd Column equals StartFraction 1 Over eta EndFraction log left parenthesis a xi plus b minus eta t right parenthesis 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals StartFraction 1 Over StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis a p squared plus 2 b p plus c right parenthesis EndFraction log left brace t StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis a p squared plus 2 b p plus c right parenthesis minus a p minus b right brace EndLayout period If a p squared plus 2 b p plus c less than 0 the transformation is imaginary.

Suppose, e.g., (a) y equals StartRoot x plus 1 EndRoot, p equals 0, or (b) y equals StartRoot x minus 1 EndRoot, p equals 0. We find

(a) integral StartFraction d x Over x StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis x plus 1 right parenthesis EndFraction equals log left parenthesis t minus one half right parenthesis comma where t squared x plus 2 t minus 1 equals 0 comma or t equals StartFraction negative 1 plus StartRoot x plus 1 EndRoot Over x EndFraction semicolon and

(b) integral StartFraction d x Over x StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis x minus 1 right parenthesis EndFraction equals minus i log left parenthesis i t minus one half right parenthesis comma where t squared x plus 2 i t minus 1 equals 0 period Neither of these results is expressed in the simplest form, the second in particular being very inconvenient.

(ii) The most straightforward method of procedure is to use the substitution x minus p equals StartFraction 1 Over t EndFraction period We then obtain integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis y EndFraction equals integral StartFraction d t Over StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis a 1 t squared plus 2 b 1 t plus c 1 right parenthesis EndFraction comma where a 1 comma b 1 comma c 1 are certain simple functions of a comma b comma c, and p. The further reduction of this integral has been discussed already.

(iii) A third method of integration is that adopted by Sir G. Greenhill[20], who uses the transformation t equals StartFraction StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis Over x minus p EndFraction period It will be found that integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis StartRoot EndRoot upper X EndFraction equals integral StartFraction d t Over StartRoot EndRoot left brace left parenthesis a p squared plus 2 b p plus c right parenthesis t squared plus b squared minus a c right brace EndFraction comma which is of one of the three standard forms mentioned in §4.

[Pg 28]

6. It remains to consider the integral integral StartFraction xi x plus eta Over left parenthesis alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma right parenthesis StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x equals integral StartFraction xi x plus eta Over upper X 1 StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x comma where alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma or upper X 1 is a quadratic with complex linear factors. Here again there is a choice of methods at our disposal.

We may suppose that upper X 1 is not a constant multiple of upper X. If it is, then the value of the integral is given by the formula[21] integral StartFraction xi x plus eta Over left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis Superscript 3 divided by 2 Baseline EndFraction d x equals StartFraction eta left parenthesis a x plus b right parenthesis minus xi left parenthesis b x plus c right parenthesis Over StartRoot left parenthesis a c minus b squared right parenthesis left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction period

(i) The standard method is to use the substitution x equals StartFraction mu t plus nu Over t plus 1 EndFraction comma left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis where mu and nu are so chosen that a mu nu plus b left parenthesis mu plus nu right parenthesis plus c equals 0 comma alpha mu nu plus beta left parenthesis mu plus nu right parenthesis plus gamma equals 0 period left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis

The values of mu and nu which satisfy these conditions are the roots of the quadratic left parenthesis a beta minus b alpha right parenthesis mu squared minus left parenthesis c alpha minus a gamma right parenthesis mu plus left parenthesis b gamma minus c beta right parenthesis equals 0 period The roots will be real and distinct if left parenthesis c alpha minus a gamma right parenthesis squared greater than 4 left parenthesis a beta minus b alpha right parenthesis left parenthesis b gamma minus c beta right parenthesis comma or if left parenthesis a gamma plus c alpha minus 2 b beta right parenthesis squared greater than 4 left parenthesis a c minus b squared right parenthesis left parenthesis alpha gamma minus beta squared right parenthesis period left parenthesis 3 right parenthesis Now alpha gamma minus beta squared greater than 0, so that (3) is certainly satisfied if a c minus b squared greater than 0. But if a c minus b squared and alpha gamma minus beta squared are both positive then a gamma and c alpha have the same sign, and StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column left parenthesis a gamma plus c alpha minus 2 b beta right parenthesis squared 2nd Column greater than or slanted equals left parenthesis StartAbsoluteValue a gamma plus c alpha EndAbsoluteValue minus 2 StartAbsoluteValue b beta EndAbsoluteValue right parenthesis squared greater than 4 left brace StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis a c alpha gamma right parenthesis minus StartAbsoluteValue b beta EndAbsoluteValue right brace squared 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals 4 left bracket left parenthesis a c minus beta squared right parenthesis left parenthesis alpha gamma minus beta squared right parenthesis plus left brace StartAbsoluteValue b EndAbsoluteValue StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis alpha gamma right parenthesis minus StartAbsoluteValue beta EndAbsoluteValue StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis a c right parenthesis right brace squared right bracket 3rd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column greater than or slanted equals 4 left parenthesis a c minus b squared right parenthesis left parenthesis alpha gamma minus beta squared right parenthesis EndLayout Thus the values of mu and nu are in any case real and distinct.

It will be found, on carrying out the substitution (1), that integral StartFraction xi x plus eta Over upper X 1 StartRoot EndRoot upper X EndFraction d x equals upper H integral StartFraction t d t Over left parenthesis bold upper A t squared plus bold upper B right parenthesis StartRoot left parenthesis upper A t squared plus upper B right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction plus upper K integral StartFraction d t Over left parenthesis bold upper A t squared plus bold upper B right parenthesis StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis upper A t squared plus upper B right parenthesis EndFraction comma where bold upper A, bold upper B, upper A, upper B, upper H, and upper K are constants. Of these two integrals, the first is rationalised by the substitution StartFraction 1 Over StartRoot left parenthesis upper A t squared plus upper B right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction equals u comma and the second by the substitution[22] StartFraction t Over StartRoot left parenthesis upper A t squared plus upper B right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction equals v period

It should be observed that this method fails in the special case in which[Pg 29] a beta minus b alpha equals 0. In this case, however, the substitution a x plus b equals t reduces the integral to one of the form integral StartFraction upper H t plus upper K Over left parenthesis bold upper A t squared plus bold upper B right parenthesis StartRoot upper A t squared plus upper B EndRoot EndFraction d t comma and the reduction may then be completed as before.

(ii) An alternative method is to use Sir G. Greenhill's substitution t equals StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis StartFraction upper X Over alpha x squared plus 2 beta x plus gamma EndFraction right parenthesis equals StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis StartFraction upper X Over upper X 1 EndFraction right parenthesis period If upper J equals left parenthesis a beta minus b alpha right parenthesis x squared minus left parenthesis c alpha minus a gamma right parenthesis x plus left parenthesis b gamma minus c beta right parenthesis comma then StartFraction 1 Over t EndFraction StartFraction d t Over d x EndFraction equals StartFraction upper J Over upper X upper X 1 EndFraction period left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis The maximum and minimum values of t are given by upper J equals 0.

Again t squared minus lamda equals StartFraction left parenthesis a minus lamda alpha right parenthesis x squared plus 2 left parenthesis b minus lamda beta right parenthesis x plus left parenthesis c minus lamda gamma right parenthesis Over upper X 1 EndFraction semicolon and the numerator will be a perfect square if upper K equals left parenthesis alpha gamma minus beta squared right parenthesis lamda squared minus left parenthesis a gamma plus c alpha minus 2 b beta right parenthesis lamda plus left parenthesis a c minus b squared right parenthesis equals 0 period

It will be found by a little calculation that the discriminant of this quadratic and that of upper J differ from one another and from left parenthesis phi minus phi 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis phi minus phi prime 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis phi prime minus phi 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis phi prime minus phi prime 1 right parenthesis comma where phi, phi prime are the roots of upper X equals 0 and phi 1, phi prime 1 those of upper X 1 equals 0, only by a constant factor which is always negative. Since phi 1 and phi prime 1 are conjugate complex numbers, this product is positive, and so upper J equals 0 and upper K equals 0 have real roots[23]. We denote the roots of the latter by lamda 1 comma lamda 2 left parenthesis lamda 1 greater than lamda 2 right parenthesis period Then StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column lamda 1 minus t squared 2nd Column equals StartFraction left brace x StartRoot lamda 1 alpha minus a EndRoot plus StartRoot lamda 1 gamma minus c EndRoot right brace squared Over upper X 1 EndFraction 3rd Column Blank 4th Column equals StartFraction left parenthesis m x plus n right parenthesis squared Over upper X 1 EndFraction comma 5th Column left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis 2nd Row 1st Column t squared minus lamda 2 2nd Column equals StartFraction left brace x StartRoot a minus lamda 2 alpha EndRoot plus StartRoot c minus lamda 2 gamma EndRoot right brace squared Over upper X 1 EndFraction 3rd Column Blank 4th Column equals StartFraction left parenthesis m prime x plus n Superscript prime Baseline right parenthesis squared Over upper X 1 EndFraction comma 5th Column left parenthesis 2 right single quotation mark right parenthesis EndLayout say. Further, since t squared minus lamda can vanish for two equal values of x only if lamda is equal to lamda 1 or lamda 2, i.e. when t is a maximum or a minimum, upper J can differ from left parenthesis m x plus n right parenthesis left parenthesis m prime x plus n prime right parenthesis only by a constant factor; and by comparing coefficients and using the identity left parenthesis lamda 1 alpha minus a right parenthesis left parenthesis a minus lamda 2 alpha right parenthesis equals StartFraction left parenthesis a beta minus b alpha right parenthesis squared Over alpha gamma minus beta squared EndFraction comma we find that upper J equals StartRoot alpha gamma minus beta squared EndRoot left parenthesis m x plus n right parenthesis left parenthesis m prime x plus n Superscript prime Baseline right parenthesis period left parenthesis 3 right parenthesis

Finally, we can write xi x plus eta in the form upper A left parenthesis m x plus n right parenthesis plus upper B left parenthesis m prime x plus n Superscript prime Baseline right parenthesis period[Pg 30]

Using equations (1), (2), (2'), and (3), we find that StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column integral StartFraction xi x plus eta Over upper X 1 StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x 2nd Column equals integral StartFraction upper A left parenthesis m x plus n right parenthesis plus upper B left parenthesis m prime x plus n prime right parenthesis Over upper J EndFraction StartRoot upper X 1 EndRoot d t 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals StartFraction upper A Over StartRoot alpha gamma minus beta squared EndRoot EndFraction integral StartFraction d t Over StartRoot lamda 1 minus t squared EndRoot EndFraction plus StartFraction upper B Over StartRoot alpha gamma minus beta squared EndRoot EndFraction integral StartFraction d t Over StartRoot t squared minus lamda 2 EndRoot EndFraction comma EndLayout and the integral is reduced to a sum of two standard forms.

This method is very elegant, and has the advantage that the whole work of transformation is performed in one step. On the other hand it is somewhat artificial, and it is open to the logical objection that it introduces the root StartRoot upper X 1 EndRoot, which, in virtue of Laplace's principle (iii., 2), cannot really be involved in the final result[24].

7. We may now proceed to consider the general case to which the theorem of iv., §2 applies. It will be convenient to recall two well-known definitions in the theory of algebraical plane curves. A curve of degree n can have at most one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis double points[25]. If the actual number of double points is nu, then the number p equals one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis minus nu is called the deficiency[26] of the curve.

If the coordinates x, y of the points on a curve can be expressed rationally in terms of a parameter t by means of equations x equals upper R 1 left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma y equals upper R 2 left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma then we shall say that the curve is unicursal. In this case we have seen that we can always evaluate integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis d x in terms of elementary functions.

The fundamental theorem in this part of our subject is

'A curve whose deficiency is zero is unicursal, and vice versa'.

Suppose first that the curve possesses the maximum number of double points[27]. Since one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis plus n minus 3 equals one half left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis left parenthesis n plus 1 right parenthesis minus 1 comma[Pg 31] and one half left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis left parenthesis n plus 1 right parenthesis points are just sufficient to determine a curve of degree n minus 2[28], we can draw, through the one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis double points and n minus 3 other points chosen arbitrarily on the curve, a simply infinite set of curves of degree n minus 2, which we may suppose to have the equation g left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis plus t h left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 comma where t is a variable parameter and g equals 0, h equals 0 are the equations of two particular members of the set. Any one of these curves meets the given curve in n left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis points, of which left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis are accounted for by the one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis double points, and n minus 3 by the other n minus 3 arbitrarily chosen points. These left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis plus n minus 3 equals n left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis minus 1 points are independent of t; and so there is but one point of intersection which depends on t. The coordinates of this point are given by g left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis plus t h left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 comma f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 period The elimination of y gives an equation of degree n left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis in x, whose coefficients are polynomials in t; and but one root of this equation varies with t. The eliminant is therefore divisible by a factor of degree n left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis minus 1 which does not contain t. There remains a simple equation in x whose coefficients are polynomials in t. Thus the x-coordinate of the variable point is determined as a rational function of t, and the y-coordinate may be similarly determined.

We may therefore write x equals upper R 1 left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma y equals upper R 2 left parenthesis t right parenthesis period If we reduce these fractions to the same denominator, we express the coordinates in the form x equals StartFraction phi 1 left parenthesis t right parenthesis Over phi 3 left parenthesis t right parenthesis EndFraction comma y equals StartFraction phi 2 left parenthesis t right parenthesis Over phi 3 left parenthesis t right parenthesis EndFraction comma left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis where phi 1, phi 2, phi 3 are polynomials which have no common factor. The polynomials will in general be of degree n; none of them can be of[Pg 32] higher degree, and one at least must be actually of that degree, since an arbitrary straight line lamda x plus mu y plus nu equals 0 must cut the curve in exactly n points[29].

We can now prove the second part of the theorem. If x colon y colon 1 colon colon phi 1 left parenthesis t right parenthesis colon phi 2 left parenthesis t right parenthesis colon phi 3 left parenthesis t right parenthesis comma where phi 1, phi 2, phi 3 are polynomials of degree n, then the line u x plus v y plus w equals 0 will meet the curve in n points whose parameters are given by u phi 1 left parenthesis t right parenthesis plus v phi 2 left parenthesis t right parenthesis plus w phi 3 left parenthesis t right parenthesis equals 0 period

This equation will have a double root t 0 if StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column u phi 1 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis plus v phi 2 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis plus w phi 3 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis 2nd Column equals 0 comma 2nd Row 1st Column u phi prime 1 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis plus v phi prime 2 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis plus w phi prime 3 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis 2nd Column equals 0 period EndLayout Hence the equation of the tangent at the point t 0 is Start 3 By 3 Determinant 1st Row 1st Column x 2nd Column y 3rd Column 1 2nd Row 1st Column phi 1 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis 2nd Column phi 2 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis 3rd Column phi 3 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis 3rd Row 1st Column phi prime 1 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis 2nd Column phi prime 2 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis 3rd Column phi prime 3 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis EndDeterminant equals 0 period left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis

If left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis is a fixed point, then the equation (2) may be regarded as an equation to determine the parameters of the points of contact of the tangents from left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis. Now phi 2 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis phi prime 3 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis minus phi prime 2 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis phi 3 left parenthesis t 0 right parenthesis is of degree 2 n minus 2 in t 0, the coefficient of t 0 Superscript 2 n minus 1 obviously vanishing. Hence in general the number of tangents which can be drawn to a unicursal curve from a fixed point (the class of the curve) is 2 n minus 2. But the class of a curve whose only singular points are delta nodes is known[30] to be n left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis minus 2 delta. Hence the number of nodes is one half left brace n left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis minus left parenthesis 2 n minus 2 right parenthesis right brace equals one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis period

It is perhaps worth pointing out how the proof which precedes requires modification if some only of the singular points are nodes and the rest ordinary cusps. The first part of the proof remains unaltered. The equation (2)[Pg 33] must now be regarded as giving the values of t which correspond to (a) points at which the tangent passes through left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis and (b) cusps, since any line through a cusp 'cuts the curve in two coincident points'[31]. We have therefore 2 n minus 2 equals m plus kappa comma where m is the class of the curve. But[32] m equals n left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis minus 2 delta minus 3 kappa comma and so[33] delta plus kappa equals one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis period

8. (i) The preceding argument fails if n less than 3, but we have already seen that all conics are unicursal. The case next in importance is that of a cubic with a double point. If the double point is not at infinity we can, by a change of origin, reduce the equation of the curve to the form left parenthesis a x plus b y right parenthesis left parenthesis c x plus d y right parenthesis equals p x cubed plus 3 q x squared y plus 3 r x y squared plus s y cubed semicolon and, by considering the intersections of the curve with the line y equals t x, we find x equals StartFraction left parenthesis a plus b t right parenthesis left parenthesis c plus d t right parenthesis Over p plus 3 q t plus 3 r t squared plus s t cubed EndFraction comma y equals StartFraction t left parenthesis a plus b t right parenthesis left parenthesis c plus d t right parenthesis Over p plus 3 q t plus 3 r t squared plus s t cubed EndFraction period

If the double point is at infinity, the equation of the curve is of the form left parenthesis alpha x plus beta y right parenthesis squared left parenthesis gamma x plus delta y right parenthesis plus epsilon x plus zeta y plus theta equals 0 comma the curve having a pair of parallel asymptotes; and, by considering the intersection of the curve with the line alpha x plus beta y equals t, we find x equals minus StartFraction delta t cubed plus zeta t plus beta theta Over left parenthesis beta gamma minus alpha delta right parenthesis t squared plus epsilon beta minus alpha zeta EndFraction comma y equals StartFraction gamma t cubed plus epsilon t plus alpha theta Over left parenthesis beta gamma minus alpha delta right parenthesis t cubed plus epsilon beta minus alpha zeta EndFraction period

(ii) The case next in complexity is that of a quartic with three double points.

(a) The lemniscate left parenthesis x squared plus y squared right parenthesis squared equals a squared left parenthesis x squared minus y squared right parenthesis has three double points, the origin and the circular points at infinity. The circle x squared plus y squared equals t left parenthesis x minus y right parenthesis[Pg 34] passes through these points and one other fixed point at the origin, as it touches the curve there. Solving, we find x equals StartFraction a squared t left parenthesis t squared plus a squared right parenthesis Over t Superscript 4 Baseline plus a Superscript 4 Baseline EndFraction comma y equals StartFraction a squared t left parenthesis t squared minus a squared right parenthesis Over t Superscript 4 Baseline plus a Superscript 4 Baseline EndFraction period

(b) The curve 2 a y cubed minus 3 a squared y squared equals x Superscript 4 Baseline minus 2 a squared x squared has the double points left parenthesis 0 comma 0 right parenthesis, left parenthesis a comma a right parenthesis, left parenthesis negative a comma a right parenthesis. Using the auxiliary conic x squared minus a y equals t x left parenthesis y minus a right parenthesis comma we find x equals StartFraction a Over t cubed EndFraction left parenthesis 2 minus 3 t squared right parenthesis comma y equals StartFraction a Over 2 t Superscript 4 Baseline EndFraction left parenthesis 2 minus 3 t squared right parenthesis left parenthesis 2 minus t squared right parenthesis period

(iii) (a) The curve y Superscript n Baseline equals x Superscript n Baseline plus a x Superscript n minus 1 has a multiple point of order n minus 1 at the origin, and is therefore unicursal. In this case it is sufficient to consider the intersection of the curve with the line y equals t x. This may be harmonised with the general theory by regarding the curve y Superscript n minus 3 Baseline left parenthesis y minus t x right parenthesis equals 0 comma as passing through each of the one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis double points collected at the origin and through n minus 3 other fixed points collected at the point x equals negative a comma y equals 0 period

The curves StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column y Superscript n 2nd Column equals x Superscript n Baseline plus a x Superscript n minus 1 Baseline comma 3rd Column left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis 2nd Row 1st Column y Superscript n 2nd Column equals 1 plus a z comma 3rd Column left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis EndLayout are projectively equivalent, as appears on rendering their equations homogeneous by the introduction of variables z in (1) and x in (2). We conclude that (2) is unicursal, having the maximum number of double points at infinity. In fact we may put y equals t comma a z equals t Superscript n Baseline minus 1 period The integral integral upper R left brace z comma RootIndex n StartRoot 1 plus a z EndRoot right brace d z is accordingly an elementary function.

(b) The curve y Superscript m Baseline equals upper A left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis Superscript mu Baseline left parenthesis x minus b right parenthesis Superscript nu is unicursal if and only if either (i) mu equals 0 or (ii) nu equals 0 or (iii) mu plus nu equals m. Hence the integral integral upper R left brace x comma left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis Superscript StartFraction mu Over m EndFraction Baseline left parenthesis x minus b right parenthesis Superscript StartFraction nu Over n EndFraction Baseline right brace d x is an elementary function, for all forms of upper R, in these three cases only; of course it is integrable for special forms of upper R in other cases[34].

[Pg 35]

9. There is a similar theory connected with unicursal curves in space of any number of dimensions. Consider for example the integral integral upper R left brace x comma StartRoot a x plus b EndRoot comma StartRoot c x plus d EndRoot right brace d x period A linear substitution x equals l x plus m reduces this integral to the form integral upper R 1 left brace y comma StartRoot y plus 2 EndRoot comma StartRoot y minus 2 EndRoot right brace d y semicolon and this integral can be rationalised by putting y equals t squared plus StartFraction 1 Over t squared EndFraction comma StartRoot y plus 2 EndRoot equals t plus StartFraction 1 Over t EndFraction comma StartRoot y minus 2 EndRoot equals t minus StartFraction 1 Over t EndFraction period

The curve whose Cartesian coordinates xi, eta, zeta are given by xi colon eta colon zeta colon 1 colon colon t Superscript 4 Baseline plus 1 colon t left parenthesis t squared plus 1 right parenthesis colon t left parenthesis t squared minus 1 right parenthesis colon t squared comma is a unicursal twisted quartic, the intersection of the parabolic cylinders xi equals eta squared minus 2 comma xi equals zeta squared plus 2 period

It is easy to deduce that the integral integral upper R left brace x comma StartRoot StartFraction a x plus b Over m x plus n EndFraction EndRoot comma StartRoot StartFraction c x plus d Over m x plus n EndFraction EndRoot right brace d x is always an elementary function.

10. When the deficiency of the curve f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 is not zero, the integral integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis d x is in general not an elementary function; and the consideration of such integrals has consequently introduced a whole series of classes of new transcendents into analysis. The simplest case is that in which the deficiency is unity: in this case, as we shall see later on, the integrals are expressible in terms of elementary functions and certain new transcendents known as elliptic integrals. When the deficiency rises above unity the integration necessitates the introduction of new transcendents of growing complexity.

But there are infinitely many particular cases in which integrals, associated with curves whose deficiency is unity or greater than unity,[Pg 36] can be expressed in terms of elementary functions, or are even algebraical themselves. For instance the deficiency of y squared equals 1 plus x cubed is unity. But StartLayout 1st Row  integral StartFraction x plus 1 Over x minus 2 EndFraction StartFraction d x Over StartRoot 1 plus x cubed EndRoot EndFraction equals 3 log StartFraction left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis squared minus 3 StartRoot 1 plus x cubed EndRoot Over left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis squared plus 3 StartRoot 1 plus x cubed EndRoot EndFraction comma 2nd Row  integral StartFraction 2 minus x cubed Over 1 plus x cubed EndFraction StartFraction d x Over StartRoot 1 plus x cubed EndRoot EndFraction equals StartFraction 2 x Over StartRoot 1 plus x cubed EndRoot EndFraction period EndLayout And, before we say anything concerning the new transcendents to which integrals of this class in general give rise, we shall consider what has been done in the way of formulating rules to enable us to identify such cases and to assign the form of the integral when it is an elementary function. It will be as well to say at once that this problem has not been solved completely.

11. The first general theorem of this character deals with the case in which the integral is algebraical, and asserts that if u equals integral y d x is an algebraical function of x, then it is a rational function of x and y.

Our proof will be based on the following lemmas.

(1) If f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis and g left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis are polynomials, and there is no factor common to all the coefficients of the various powers of y in g left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis; and f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals g left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis h left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma where h left parenthesis x right parenthesis is a rational function of x; then h left parenthesis x right parenthesis is a polynomial.

Let h equals StartFraction upper P Over upper Q EndFraction, where upper P and upper Q are polynomials without a common factor. Then f upper Q equals g upper P period If x minus a is a factor of upper Q, then g left parenthesis a comma y right parenthesis equals 0 for all values of y; and so all the coefficients of powers of y in g left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis are divisible by x minus a, which is contrary to our hypotheses. Hence upper Q is a constant and h a polynomial.

(2) Suppose that f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis is an irreducible polynomial, and that y 1 comma y 2 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline are the roots of f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0[Pg 37] in a certain domain upper D. Suppose further that phi left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis is another polynomial, and that phi left parenthesis x comma y 1 right parenthesis equals 0 period Then phi left parenthesis x comma y Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis equals 0 comma where y Subscript s is any one of the roots of (1); and phi left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis psi left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis comma where psi left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis also is a polynomial in x and y.

Let us determine the highest common factor pi of f and phi, considered as polynomials in y, by the ordinary process for the determination of the highest common factor of two polynomials. This process depends only on a series of algebraical divisions, and so pi is a polynomial in y with coefficients rational in x. We have therefore StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column pi left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals omega left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis lamda left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma 2nd Column left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis 2nd Row 1st Column f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals omega left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis p left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis mu left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals g left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis mu left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma 2nd Column left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis 3rd Row 1st Column phi left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals omega left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis q left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis nu left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals h left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis nu left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma 2nd Column left parenthesis 3 right parenthesis EndLayout where omega, p, q, g, and h are polynomials and lamda, mu, and nu rational functions; and evidently we may suppose that neither in g nor in h have the coefficients of all powers of y a common factor. Hence, by Lemma (1), mu and nu are polynomials. But f is irreducible, and therefore mu and either omega or p must be constants. If omega were a constant, pi would be a function of x only. But this is impossible. For we can determine polynomials upper L, upper M in y, with coefficients rational in x, such that upper L f plus upper M phi equals pi comma left parenthesis 4 right parenthesis and the left-hand side of (4) vanishes when we write y 1 for y. Hence p is a constant, and so omega is a constant multiple of f. The truth of the lemma now follows from (3).

It follows from Lemma (2) that y cannot satisfy any equation of degree less than n whose coefficients are polynomials in x.

(3) If y is an algebraical function of x, defined by an equation f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis of degree n, then any rational function upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis of x and y can be expressed in the form upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals upper R 0 plus upper R 1 y plus ellipsis plus upper R Subscript n minus 1 Baseline y Superscript n minus 1 Baseline comma left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis where upper R 0 comma upper R 1 comma ellipsis comma upper R Subscript n minus 1 Baseline are rational functions of x.

[Pg 38]

The function y is one of the n roots of (1). Let y comma y prime comma y double prime comma ellipsis be the complete system of roots. Then StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis 2nd Column equals StartFraction upper P left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis Over upper Q left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis EndFraction 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals ContinuedFraction upper P left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis upper Q left parenthesis x comma y Superscript prime Baseline right parenthesis upper Q left parenthesis x comma y Superscript double prime Baseline right parenthesis ellipsis Over upper Q left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis upper Q left parenthesis x comma y Superscript prime Baseline right parenthesis upper Q left parenthesis x comma y Superscript double prime Baseline right parenthesis ellipsis left parenthesis 3 right parenthesis comma EndLayout where upper P and upper Q are polynomials. The denominator is a polynomial in x whose coefficients are symmetric polynomials in y comma y prime comma y double prime comma ellipsis, and is therefore, by ii., §3, (i), a rational function of x. On the other hand upper Q left parenthesis x comma y Superscript prime Baseline right parenthesis upper Q left parenthesis x comma y Superscript double prime Baseline right parenthesis ellipsis is a polynomial in x whose coefficients are symmetric polynomials in y prime comma y double prime comma ellipsis, and therefore, by ii., §3, (ii), polynomials in y with coefficients rational in x. Thus the numerator of (3) is a polynomial in y with coefficients rational in x.

It follows that upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis is a polynomial in y with coefficients rational in x. From this polynomial we can eliminate, by means of (1), all powers of y as high as or higher than the nth. Hence upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis is of the form prescribed by the lemma.

12. We proceed now to the proof of our main theorem. We have integral y d x equals u where u is algebraical. Let f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 comma psi left parenthesis x comma u right parenthesis equals 0 left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis be the irreducible equations satisfied by y and u, and let us suppose that they are of degrees n and m respectively. The first stage in the proof consists in showing that m equals n period It will be convenient now to write y 1, u 1 for y, u, and to denote by y 1 comma y 2 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline comma u 1 comma u 2 comma ellipsis comma u Subscript m Baseline comma the complete systems of roots of the equations (1).

We have psi left parenthesis x comma u 1 right parenthesis equals 0 comma and so chi 1 equals StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential x EndFraction plus StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential u 1 EndFraction StartFraction d u 1 Over d x EndFraction equals StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential x EndFraction plus y 1 StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential u 1 EndFraction equals 0 period Now let normal upper Omega left parenthesis x comma u 1 right parenthesis equals product Underscript r equals 1 Overscript n Endscripts left parenthesis StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential x EndFraction plus y Subscript r Baseline StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential u 1 EndFraction right parenthesis period Then normal upper Omega is a polynomial in u 1, with coefficients symmetric in y 1 comma y 2 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline and therefore rational in x.

[Pg 39]

The equations psi equals 0 and normal upper Omega equals 0 have a root u 1 in common, and the first equation is irreducible. It follows, by Lemma (2) of §11, that normal upper Omega left parenthesis x comma u Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis equals 0 for s equals 1 comma 2 comma ellipsis comma m.[35] And from this it follows that, when s is given, we have StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential x EndFraction plus y Subscript r Baseline StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential u Subscript s Baseline EndFraction left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis for some value of the suffix r.

But we have also StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential x EndFraction plus StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential u Subscript s Baseline EndFraction StartFraction d u Subscript s Baseline Over d x EndFraction equals 0 semicolon left parenthesis 3 right parenthesis and from (2) and (3) it follows[36] that StartFraction d u Subscript s Baseline Over d x EndFraction equals y Subscript r Baseline comma left parenthesis 4 right parenthesis i.e. that every u is the integral of some y.

In the same way we can show that every y is the derivative of some u. Let omega left parenthesis x comma y 1 right parenthesis equals product Underscript s equals 1 Overscript m Endscripts left parenthesis StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential x EndFraction plus y 1 StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential u Subscript s Baseline EndFraction right parenthesis period Then omega is a polynomial in y 1, with coefficients symmetric in u 1 comma u 2 comma ellipsis comma u Subscript m Baseline and therefore rational in x. The equations f equals 0 and omega equals 0 have a root y 1 in common, and so omega left parenthesis x comma y Subscript r Baseline right parenthesis equals 0 for r equals 1 comma 2 comma ellipsis comma n. From this we deduce that, when r is given, (2) must be true for some value of s, and so that the same is true of (4).

Now it is impossible that, in (4), two different values of s should correspond to the same value of r. For this would involve u Subscript s Baseline minus u Subscript t Baseline equals c where s not equals t and c is a constant. Hence we should have psi left parenthesis x comma u Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis equals 0 comma psi left parenthesis x comma u Subscript s Baseline minus c right parenthesis equals 0 period[Pg 40] Subtracting these equations, we should obtain an equation of degree m minus 1 in u Subscript s, with coefficients which are polynomials in x; and this is impossible. In the same way we can prove that two different values of r cannot correspond to the same value of s.

The equation (4) therefore establishes a one-one correspondence between the values of r and s. It follows that m equals n period It is moreover evident that, by arranging the suffixes properly, we can make StartFraction d u Subscript r Baseline Over d x EndFraction equals y Subscript r Baseline left parenthesis 5 right parenthesis for r equals 1 comma 2 comma ellipsis comma n.

13. We have y Subscript r Baseline equals StartFraction d u Subscript r Baseline Over d x EndFraction equals minus StartStartFraction StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential x EndFraction OverOver StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential u Subscript r Baseline EndFraction EndEndFraction equals upper R left parenthesis x comma u Subscript r Baseline right parenthesis comma where upper R is a rational function which may, in virtue of Lemma (3) of § 11, be expressed as a polynomial of degree n minus 1 in u Subscript r, with coefficients rational in x.

The product product Underscript s not equals r Endscripts left parenthesis z minus y Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis is a polynomial of degree n minus 1 in z, with coefficients which are symmetric polynomials in y 1 comma y 2 comma ellipsis comma y Subscript r minus 1 Baseline comma y Subscript r plus 1 Baseline comma ellipsis comma y Subscript n Baseline and therefore, by ii., §3, (ii), polynomials in y Subscript r with coefficients rational in x. Replacing y Subscript r by its expression as a polynomial in u Subscript r obtained above, and eliminating u Subscript r Superscript n and all higher powers of u Subscript r, we obtain an equation product Underscript s not equals r Endscripts left parenthesis z minus y Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis equals sigma summation Underscript j equals 0 Overscript n minus 1 Endscripts sigma summation Underscript k equals 0 Overscript n minus 1 Endscripts upper S Subscript j comma k Baseline left parenthesis x right parenthesis z Superscript j Baseline u Subscript r Superscript k Baseline comma where the upper S's are rational functions of x which are, from the method of their formation, independent of the particular value of r selected. We may therefore write product Underscript s not equals r Endscripts left parenthesis z minus y Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis equals upper P left parenthesis x comma z comma u Subscript r Baseline right parenthesis comma where upper P is a polynomial in z and u Subscript r with coefficients rational in x. It is evident that upper P left parenthesis x comma y Subscript s Baseline comma u Subscript r Baseline right parenthesis equals 0 for every value of s other than r. In particular upper P left parenthesis x comma y 1 comma u Subscript r Baseline right parenthesis equals 0 left parenthesis r equals 2 comma 3 comma ellipsis comma n right parenthesis period

[Pg 41]

It follows that the n minus 1 roots of the equation in u upper P left parenthesis x comma y 1 comma u right parenthesis equals 0 are u 2 comma u 3 comma ellipsis comma u Subscript n Baseline. We have therefore StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column upper P left parenthesis x comma y 1 comma u right parenthesis 2nd Column equals upper T 0 left parenthesis x comma y 1 right parenthesis product Underscript 2 Overscript n Endscripts left parenthesis u minus u Subscript r Baseline right parenthesis 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals upper T 0 left parenthesis x comma y 1 right parenthesis left brace u Superscript n minus 1 Baseline minus u Superscript n minus 2 Baseline left parenthesis u 2 plus u 3 plus ellipsis plus u Subscript n Baseline right parenthesis plus ellipsis right brace 3rd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals upper T 0 left parenthesis x comma y 1 right parenthesis left bracket u Superscript n minus 1 Baseline plus u Superscript n minus 2 Baseline left brace u 1 plus StartFraction upper B 1 left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over upper B 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis EndFraction right brace plus ellipsis right bracket comma EndLayout where upper T 0 left parenthesis x comma y 1 right parenthesis is the coefficient of u Superscript n minus 1 in upper P, and upper B 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis and upper B 1 left parenthesis x right parenthesis are the coefficients of u Superscript n and u Superscript n minus 1 in psi. Equating the coefficients of u Superscript n minus 2 on the two sides of this equation, we obtain u 1 plus StartFraction upper B 1 left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over upper B 0 left parenthesis x right parenthesis EndFraction equals StartFraction upper T 1 left parenthesis x comma y 1 right parenthesis Over upper T 0 left parenthesis x comma y 1 right parenthesis EndFraction comma where upper T 1 left parenthesis x comma y 1 right parenthesis is the coefficient of u Superscript n minus 2 in upper P. Thus the theorem is proved.

14. We can now apply Lemma (3) of §11; and we arrive at the final conclusion that if integral y d x is algebraical then it can be expressed in the form upper R 0 plus upper R 1 y plus ellipsis plus upper R Subscript n minus 1 Baseline y Superscript n minus 1 Baseline comma where upper R 0 comma upper R 1 comma ellipsis are rational functions of x.

The most important case is that in which y equals RootIndex n StartRoot upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis EndRoot comma where upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis is rational. In this case StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column y Superscript n 2nd Column equals upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma 3rd Column left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis 2nd Row 1st Column StartFraction d y Over d x EndFraction 2nd Column equals StartFraction upper R prime left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over n y Superscript n minus 1 Baseline EndFraction period 3rd Column left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis EndLayout

But StartLayout 1st Row  y equals upper R prime 0 plus upper R prime 1 y plus ellipsis plus upper R prime Subscript n minus 1 Baseline y Superscript n minus 1 Baseline 2nd Row  plus left brace upper R 1 plus 2 upper R 2 y plus ellipsis plus left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis upper R Subscript n minus 1 Baseline y Superscript n minus 2 Baseline right brace StartFraction d y Over d x EndFraction period left parenthesis 3 right parenthesis EndLayout Eliminating StartFraction d y Over d x EndFraction between these equations, we obtain an equation pi left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 comma left parenthesis 4 right parenthesis where pi left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis is a polynomial. It follows from Lemma (2) of §11 that this equation must be satisfied by all the roots of (1). Thus (4) is still true if we replace y by any other root y prime of (1); and as[Pg 42] (2) is still true when we effect this substitution, it follows that (3) is also still true. Integrating, we see that the equation integral y d x equals upper R 0 plus upper R 1 y plus ellipsis plus upper R Subscript n minus 1 Baseline y Superscript n minus 1 is true when y is replaced by y prime. We may therefore replace y by omega y, omega being any primitive nth root of unity. Making this substitution, and multiplying by omega Superscript n minus 1, we obtain integral y d x equals omega Superscript n minus 1 Baseline upper R 0 plus upper R 1 y plus omega upper R 2 y plus ellipsis plus omega Superscript n minus 2 Baseline upper R Subscript n minus 1 Baseline y Superscript n minus 1 Baseline semicolon and on adding the n equations of this type we obtain integral y d x equals upper R 1 y period Thus in this case the functions upper R 0 comma upper R 2 comma ellipsis comma upper R Subscript n minus 1 Baseline all disappear.

It has been shown by Liouville[37] that the preceding results enable us to obtain in all cases, by a finite number of elementary algebraical operations, a solution of the problem 'to determine whether integral y d x is algebraical, and to find the integral when it is algebraical'.

15. It would take too long to attempt to trace in detail the steps of the general argument. We shall confine ourselves to a solution of a particular problem which will give a sufficient illustration of the general nature of the arguments which must be employed.

We shall determine under what circumstances the integral integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis StartRoot left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction is algebraical. This question might of course be answered by actually evaluating the integral in the general case and finding when the integral function reduces to an algebraical function. We are now, however, in a position to answer it without any such integration.

We shall suppose first that a x squared plus 2 b x plus c is not a perfect square. In this case y equals StartFraction 1 Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction comma where upper X equals left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis squared left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis comma and if integral y d x is algebraical it must be of the form StartFraction upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction period Hence y equals StartFraction d Over d x EndFraction left parenthesis StartFraction upper R Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction right parenthesis comma or 2 upper X equals 2 upper X upper R Superscript prime Baseline minus upper R upper X Superscript prime Baseline period

[Pg 43]

We can now show that upper R is a polynomial in x. For if upper R equals StartFraction upper U Over upper V EndFraction, where upper U and upper V are polynomials, then upper V, if not a mere constant, must contain a factor left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis Superscript mu Baseline left parenthesis mu greater than 0 right parenthesis comma and we can put upper R equals StartFraction upper U Over upper W left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis Superscript mu Baseline EndFraction comma where upper U and upper W do not contain the factor x minus alpha. Substituting this expression for upper R, and reducing, we obtain StartFraction 2 mu upper U upper W upper X Over x minus alpha EndFraction equals 2 upper U prime upper W upper X minus 2 upper U upper W prime upper X minus upper U upper W upper X Superscript prime Baseline minus 2 upper W squared upper X left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis Superscript mu Baseline period Hence upper X must be divisible by x minus alpha. Suppose then that upper X equals left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis Superscript k Baseline upper Y comma where upper Y is prime to x minus alpha. Substituting in the equation last obtained we deduce StartFraction left parenthesis 2 mu plus k right parenthesis upper U upper W upper Y Over x minus alpha EndFraction equals 2 upper U prime upper W upper Y minus 2 upper U upper W prime upper Y minus upper U upper W upper Y Superscript prime Baseline minus 2 upper W squared upper Y left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis Superscript mu Baseline comma which is obviously impossible, since neither upper U, upper W, nor upper Y is divisible by x minus alpha. Thus upper V must be a constant. Hence integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis StartRoot left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction equals StartFraction upper U left parenthesis x right parenthesis Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis StartRoot left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction comma where upper U left parenthesis x right parenthesis is a polynomial.

Differentiating and clearing of radicals we obtain left brace left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis upper U prime minus 1 right parenthesis minus upper U right brace left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis equals upper U left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis a x plus b right parenthesis period Suppose that the first term in upper U is upper A x Superscript m. Equating the coefficients of x Superscript m plus 2, we find at once that m equals 2. We may therefore take upper U equals upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C comma so that StartLayout 1st Row  left brace left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis 2 upper A x plus 2 upper B minus 1 right parenthesis minus upper A x squared minus 2 upper B x minus upper C right brace left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis 2nd Row  equals left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis a x plus b right parenthesis left parenthesis upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C right parenthesis period left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis EndLayout

From (1) it follows that left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis a x plus b right parenthesis left parenthesis upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C right parenthesis is divisible by a x squared plus 2 b x plus c. But a x plus b is not a factor of a x squared plus 2 b x plus c, as the latter is not a perfect square. Hence either (i) a x squared plus 2 b x plus c and upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C differ only by a constant factor or (ii) the two quadratics have one and only one factor in common, and x minus p is also a factor of a x squared plus 2 b x plus c. In the latter case we may write a x squared plus 2 b x plus c equals a left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus q right parenthesis comma upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C equals upper A left parenthesis x minus q right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus r right parenthesis comma where p not equals q, p not equals r. It then follows from (1) that a left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis 2 upper A x plus 2 upper B minus 1 right parenthesis minus a upper A left parenthesis x minus q right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus r right parenthesis equals upper A left parenthesis a x plus b right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus r right parenthesis period Hence 2 upper A x plus 2 upper B minus 1 is divisible by x minus r. Dividing by a upper A left parenthesis x minus r right parenthesis we obtain 2 left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis minus left parenthesis x minus q right parenthesis equals x plus StartFraction b Over a EndFraction equals x minus one half left parenthesis p plus q right parenthesis comma and so p equals q, which is untrue.

[Pg 44]

Hence case (ii) is impossible, and so a x squared plus 2 b x plus c and upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C differ only by a constant factor. It then follows from (1) that x minus p is a factor of a x squared plus 2 b x plus c; and the result becomes integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis StartRoot left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction equals upper K StartFraction StartRoot left parenthesis a x squared plus 2 b x plus c right parenthesis EndRoot x minus p Over comma EndFraction where upper K is a constant. It is easily verified that this equation is actually true when a p squared plus 2 b p plus c equals 0, and that upper K equals StartFraction 1 Over StartRoot b squared minus a c EndRoot EndFraction period The formula is equivalent to integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis StartRoot left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus q right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction equals StartFraction 2 Over q minus p EndFraction StartRoot left parenthesis StartFraction x minus q Over x minus p EndFraction right parenthesis EndRoot period

There remains for consideration the case in which a x squared plus 2 b x plus c is a perfect square, say a left parenthesis x minus q right parenthesis squared. Then integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis x minus p right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus q right parenthesis EndFraction must be rational, and so p equals q.

As a further example, the reader may verify that if y cubed minus 3 y plus 2 x equals 0 then[38] integral y d x equals three eighths left parenthesis 2 x y minus y squared right parenthesis period

16. The theorem of §11 enables us to complete the proof of the two fundamental theorems stated without proof in ii., §5, viz.

(a) e Superscript x is not an algebraical function of x,

(b) log x is not an algebraical function of x.

We shall prove (b) as a special case of a more general theorem, viz. 'no sum of the form upper A log left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis plus upper B log left parenthesis x minus beta right parenthesis plus ellipsis comma in which the coefficients upper A comma upper B comma ellipsis are not all zero, can be an algebraical function of x'. To prove this we have only to observe that the sum in question is the integral of a rational function of x. If then it is algebraical it must, by the theorem of §11, be rational, and this we have already seen to be impossible (iv., 2).

That e Superscript x is not algebraical now follows at once from the fact that it is the inverse function of log x.

17. The general theorem of §11 gives the first step in the rigid proof of 'Laplace's principle' stated in iii., §2. On account of the immense importance of this principle we repeat Laplace's words:[Pg 45] 'l'intégrale d'une fonction différentielle ne peut contenir d'autres quantités radicaux que celles qui entrent dans cette fonction'. This general principle, combined with arguments similar to those used above (§15) in a particular case, enables us to prove without difficulty that a great many integrals cannot be algebraical, notably the standard elliptic integrals integral StartFraction d x Over StartRoot StartSet left parenthesis 1 minus x squared right parenthesis left parenthesis 1 minus k squared x squared right parenthesis EndSet EndRoot EndFraction comma integral StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis StartFraction 1 minus x squared Over 1 minus k squared x squared EndFraction right parenthesis d x comma integral StartFraction d x Over StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis 4 x cubed minus g 2 x minus g 3 right parenthesis EndFraction which give rise by inversion to the elliptic functions.

18. We must now consider in a very summary manner the more difficult question of the nature of those integrals of algebraical functions which are expressible in finite terms by means of the elementary transcendental functions. In the first place no integral of any algebraical function can contain any exponential. Of this theorem it is, as we remarked before, easy to become convinced by a little reflection, as doubtless did Laplace, who certainly possessed no rigorous proof. The reader will find little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that exponentials cannot be eliminated from an elementary function by differentiation. But we would strongly recommend him to study the exceedingly beautiful and ingenious proof of this proposition given by Liouville[39]. We have unfortunately no space to insert it here.

It is instructive to consider particular cases of this theorem. Suppose for example that integral y d x, where y is algebraical, were a polynomial in x and e Superscript x, say sigma summation sigma summation a Subscript m comma n Baseline x Superscript m Baseline e Superscript n x Baseline period left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis When this expression is differentiated, e Superscript x must disappear from it: otherwise we should have an algebraical relation between x and e Superscript x. Expressing the conditions that the coefficient of every power of e Superscript x in the differential coefficient of (1) vanishes identically, we find that the same must be true of (1), so that after all the integral does not really contain e Superscript x. Liouville's proof is in reality a development of this idea.

The integral of an algebraical function, if expressible in terms of elementary functions, can therefore only contain algebraical or logarithmic functions. The next step is to show that the logarithms must be simple logarithms of algebraical functions and can only enter linearly, so that the general integral must be of the type integral y d x equals u plus upper A log v plus upper B log w plus ellipsis comma[Pg 46] where upper A comma upper B comma ellipsis are constants and u comma v comma w comma ellipsis algebraical functions. Only when the logarithms occur in this simple form will differentiation eliminate them.

Lastly it can be shown by arguments similar to those of §§11—14 that u comma v comma w comma ellipsis are rational functions of x and y. Thus integral y d x, if an elementary function, is the sum of a rational function of x and y and of certain constant multiples of logarithms of such functions. We can suppose that no two of upper A comma upper B comma ellipsis are commensurable, or indeed, more generally, that no linear relation upper A alpha plus upper B beta plus ellipsis equals 0 comma with rational coefficients, holds between them. For if such a relation held then we could eliminate upper A from the integral, writing it in the form integral y d x equals u plus upper B log left parenthesis w v Superscript negative beta divided by alpha Baseline right parenthesis plus ellipsis period

It is instructive to verify the truth of this theorem in the special case in which the curve f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0 is unicursal. In this case x and y are rational functions upper R left parenthesis t right parenthesis, upper S left parenthesis t right parenthesis of a parameter t, and the integral, being the integral of a rational function of t, is of the form u plus upper A log v plus upper B log w plus ellipsis comma where u comma v comma w comma ellipsis are rational functions of t. But t may be expressed, by means of elementary algebraical operations, as a rational function of x and y. Thus u comma v comma w comma ellipsis are rational functions of x and y.

The case of greatest interest is that in which y is a rational function of x and StartRoot upper X EndRoot, where upper X is a polynomial. As we have already seen, y can in this case be expressed in the form upper P plus StartFraction upper Q Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction comma where upper P and upper Q are rational functions of x. We shall suppress the rational part and suppose that y equals StartFraction upper Q Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction. In this case the general theorem gives integral StartFraction upper Q Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x equals upper S plus StartFraction upper T Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction plus upper A log left parenthesis alpha plus beta StartRoot upper X EndRoot right parenthesis plus upper B log left parenthesis gamma plus delta StartRoot upper X EndRoot right parenthesis plus ellipsis comma where upper S comma upper T comma alpha comma beta comma gamma comma delta comma ellipsis are rational. If we differentiate this equation we obtain an algebraical identity in which we can change the sign of StartRoot upper X EndRoot. Thus we may change the sign of StartRoot upper X EndRoot in the integral equation. If we do this and subtract, and write 2 upper A comma ellipsis for upper A comma ellipsis, we obtain integral StartFraction upper Q Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x equals StartFraction upper T Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction plus upper A log StartFraction alpha plus beta StartRoot upper X EndRoot Over alpha minus beta StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction plus upper B log StartFraction gamma plus delta StartRoot upper X EndRoot Over gamma minus delta StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction plus ellipsis comma[Pg 47] which is the standard form for such an integral. It is evident that we may suppose alpha comma beta comma gamma comma ellipsis to be polynomials.

19. (i) By means of this theorem it is possible to prove that a number of important integrals, and notably the integrals integral StartFraction d x Over StartRoot left brace EndRoot StartSet left parenthesis 1 minus x squared right parenthesis left parenthesis 1 minus k squared x squared right parenthesis EndSet EndFraction comma integral StartRoot EndRoot StartSet StartFraction 1 minus x squared Over 1 minus k squared x squared EndFraction EndSet d x comma integral StartFraction d x Over StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis 4 x cubed minus g 2 x minus g 3 right parenthesis EndFraction comma are not expressible in terms of elementary functions, and so represent genuinely new transcendents. The formal proof of this was worked out by Liouville[40]; it rests merely on a consideration of the possible forms of the differential coefficients of expressions of the form StartFraction upper T Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction plus upper A log StartFraction alpha plus beta StartRoot upper X EndRoot Over alpha minus beta StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction plus ellipsis comma and the arguments used are purely algebraical and of no great theoretical difficulty. The proof is however too detailed to be inserted here. It is not difficult to find shorter proofs, but these are of a less elementary character, being based on ideas drawn from the theory of functions[41].

The general questions of this nature which arise in connection with integrals of the form integral StartFraction upper Q Over StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x comma or, more generally, integral StartFraction upper Q Over RootIndex m StartRoot upper X EndRoot EndFraction d x comma are of extreme interest and difficulty. The case which has received most attention is that in which m equals 2 and upper X is of the third or fourth degree, in which case the integral is said to be elliptic. An integral of this kind is called pseudo-elliptic if it is expressible in terms of algebraical and logarithmic functions. Two examples were given above (§ 10). General methods have been given for the construction of such integrals, and it has been shown that certain interesting forms are pseudo-elliptic. In Goursat's Cours d'analyse[42], for instance, it is shown that if f left parenthesis x right parenthesis is a rational function such that f left parenthesis x right parenthesis plus f left parenthesis StartFraction 1 Over k squared x EndFraction right parenthesis equals 0 comma then integral StartFraction f left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x Over StartRoot StartSet x left parenthesis 1 minus x right parenthesis left parenthesis 1 minus k squared x right parenthesis EndSet EndRoot EndFraction is pseudo-elliptic. But no method has been devised as yet by which we can always determine in a finite number of steps whether a given elliptic integral[Pg 48] is pseudo-elliptic, and integrate it if it is, and there is reason to suppose that no such method can be given. And up to the present it has not, so far as we know, been proved rigorously and explicitly that (e.g.) the function u equals integral StartFraction d x Over StartRoot left parenthesis 1 minus x squared right parenthesis left parenthesis 1 minus k squared x squared right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction is not a root of an elementary transcendental equation; all that has been shown is that it is not explicitly expressible in terms of elementary transcendents. The processes of reasoning employed here, and in the memoirs to which we have referred, do not therefore suffice to prove that the inverse function x equals s n u is not an elementary function of u. Such a proof must rest on the known properties of the function s n u, and would lie altogether outside the province of this tract.

The reader who desires to pursue the subject further will find references to the original authorities in Appendix I.

(ii) One particular class of integrals which is of especial interest is that of the binomial integrals integral x Superscript m Baseline left parenthesis a x Superscript n Baseline plus b right parenthesis Superscript p Baseline d x comma where m, n, p are rational. Putting a x Superscript n Baseline equals b t, and neglecting a constant factor, we obtain an integral of the form integral t Superscript q Baseline left parenthesis 1 plus t right parenthesis Superscript p Baseline d t comma where p and q are rational. If p is an integer, and q a fraction StartFraction r Over s EndFraction, this integral can be evaluated at once by putting t equals u Superscript s, a substitution which rationalises the integrand. If q is an integer, and p equals StartFraction r Over s EndFraction, we put 1 plus t equals u Superscript s. If p plus q is an integer, and p equals StartFraction r Over s EndFraction, we put 1 plus t equals t u Superscript s.

It follows from Tschebyschef's researches (to which references are given in Appendix I) that these three cases are the only ones in which the integral can be evaluated in finite form.

20. In §§7—9 we considered in some detail the integrals connected with curves whose deficiency is zero. We shall now consider in a more summary way the case next in simplicity, that in which the deficiency is unity, so that the number of double points is one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis minus 1 equals one half n left parenthesis n minus 3 right parenthesis period It has been shown by Clebsch[43] that in this case the coordinates of the points of the curve can be expressed as rational functions of a parameter t and of the square root of a polynomial in t of the third or fourth degree.

[Pg 49]

The fact is that the curves StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column y squared 2nd Column equals a plus b x plus c x squared plus d x cubed comma 2nd Row 1st Column y squared 2nd Column equals a plus b x plus c x squared plus d x cubed plus e x Superscript 4 Baseline comma EndLayout are the simplest curves of deficiency 1. The first is the typical cubic without a double point. The second is a quartic with two double points, in this case coinciding in a 'tacnode' at infinity, as we see by making the equation homogeneous with z, writing 1 for y, and then comparing the resulting equation with the form treated by Salmon on p. 215 of his Higher plane curves. The reader who is familiar with the theory of algebraical plane curves will remember that the deficiency of a curve is unaltered by any birational transformation of coordinates, and that any curve can be birationally transformed into any other curve of the same deficiency, so that any curve of deficiency 1 can be birationally transformed into the cubic whose equation is written above.

The argument by which this general theorem is proved is very much like that by which we proved the corresponding theorem for unicursal curves. The simplest case is that of the general cubic curve. We take a point on the curve as origin, so that the equation of the curve is of the form a x cubed plus 3 b x squared y plus 3 c x y squared plus d y cubed plus e x squared plus 2 f x y plus g y squared plus h x plus k y equals 0 period Let us consider the intersections of this curve with the secant y equals t x. Eliminating y, and solving the resulting quadratic in x, we see that the only irrationality which enters into the expression of x is StartRoot left parenthesis upper T 2 squared minus 4 upper T 1 upper T 3 right parenthesis EndRoot comma where upper T 1 equals h plus k t comma upper T 2 equals e plus 2 f t plus g t squared comma upper T 3 equals a plus 3 b t plus 3 c t squared plus d t cubed period

A more elegant method has been given by Clebsch[44]. If we write the cubic in the form upper L upper M upper N equals upper P comma where upper L, upper M, upper N, upper P are linear functions of x and y, so that upper L, upper M, upper N are the asymptotes, then the hyperbolas upper L upper M equals t will meet the cubic in four fixed points at infinity, and therefore in two points only which depend on t. For these points upper L upper M equals t comma upper P equals t upper N period Eliminating y from these equations, we obtain an equation of the form upper A x squared plus 2 upper B x plus upper C equals 0 comma where upper A, upper B, upper C are quadratics in t. Hence x equals minus StartFraction upper B Over upper A EndFraction plus or minus StartFraction StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis upper B squared minus upper A upper C right parenthesis Over upper A EndFraction equals upper R left parenthesis t comma StartRoot EndRoot upper T Superscript upper T Baseline right parenthesis comma[Pg 50] where upper T equals upper B squared minus upper A upper C is a polynomial in t of degree not higher than the fourth.

Thus if the curve is x cubed plus y cubed minus 3 a x y plus 1 equals 0 comma so that upper L equals omega x plus omega squared y plus a comma upper M equals omega squared x plus omega y plus a comma upper N equals x plus y plus a comma upper P equals a cubed minus 1 comma omega being an imaginary cube root of unity, then we find that the line x plus y plus a equals StartFraction a cubed minus 1 Over t EndFraction meets the curve in the points given by x equals StartFraction b minus a t Over 2 t EndFraction plus or minus StartFraction StartRoot 3 upper T EndRoot Over 6 t EndFraction comma y equals StartFraction b minus a t Over 2 t EndFraction minus or plus StartFraction StartRoot 3 upper T EndRoot Over 6 t EndFraction comma where b equals a cubed minus 1 and upper T equals 4 t cubed minus 9 a squared t squared plus 6 a b t minus b squared period

In particular, for the curve x cubed plus y cubed plus 1 equals 0 comma we have x equals StartFraction minus StartRoot EndRoot 3 plus StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis 4 t cubed minus 1 right parenthesis Over 2 t StartRoot EndRoot 3 EndFraction comma y equals StartFraction minus StartRoot EndRoot 3 minus StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis 4 t cubed minus 1 right parenthesis Over 2 t StartRoot EndRoot 3 EndFraction period

21. It will be plain from what precedes that integral upper R left brace x comma RootIndex 3 StartRoot left parenthesis a plus b x plus c x squared plus d x cubed right parenthesis right brace EndRoot d x can always be reduced to an elliptic integral, the deficiency of the cubic y cubed equals a plus b x plus c x squared plus d x cubed being unity.

In general integrals associated with curves whose deficiency is greater than unity cannot be so reduced. But associated with every curve of, let us say, deficiency 2 there will be an infinity of integrals integral upper R left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis d x reducible to elliptic integrals or even to elementary functions; and there are curves of deficiency 2 for which all such integrals are reducible.

For example, the integral integral upper R left brace x comma StartRoot left parenthesis x Superscript 6 Baseline plus a x Superscript 4 Baseline plus b x squared plus c EndRoot right parenthesis d x[Pg 51] may be split up into the sum of the integral of a rational function and two integrals of the types integral StartFraction upper R left parenthesis x squared right parenthesis d x Over StartRoot left parenthesis x Superscript 6 Baseline plus a x Superscript 4 Baseline plus b x squared plus c right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction comma integral StartFraction x upper R left parenthesis x squared right parenthesis d x Over StartRoot left parenthesis x Superscript 6 Baseline plus a x Superscript 4 Baseline plus b x squared plus c right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction comma and each of these integrals becomes elliptic on putting x squared equals t. But the deficiency of y squared equals x Superscript 6 Baseline plus a x Superscript 4 Baseline plus b x squared plus c is 2. Another example is given by the integral[45] integral upper R left brace x comma RootIndex 4 StartRoot EndRoot left parenthesis x Superscript 4 Baseline plus a x cubed plus b x squared plus c x plus d right parenthesis right brace d x period

22. It would be beside our present purpose to enter into any details as to the general theory of elliptic integrals, still less of the integrals (usually called Abelian) associated with curves of deficiency greater than unity. We have seen that if the deficiency is unity then the integral can be transformed into the form integral upper R left parenthesis x comma StartRoot upper X EndRoot right parenthesis d x where[46] upper X equals x Superscript 4 Baseline plus a x cubed plus b x squared plus c x plus d period It can be shown that, by a transformation of the type x equals StartFraction alpha t plus beta Over gamma t plus delta EndFraction comma this integral can be transformed into an integral integral upper R left parenthesis t comma StartRoot upper T EndRoot right parenthesis d t where upper T equals t Superscript 4 Baseline plus upper A t squared plus upper B period

We can then, as when upper T is of the second degree (§3), decompose this integral into two integrals of the forms integral upper R left parenthesis t right parenthesis d t comma integral StartFraction upper R left parenthesis t right parenthesis d t Over StartRoot upper T EndRoot EndFraction period Of these integrals the first is elementary, and the second can be[Pg 52] decomposed[47] into the sum of an algebraical term, of certain multiples of the integrals integral StartFraction d t Over StartRoot upper T EndRoot EndFraction comma integral StartFraction t squared d t Over StartRoot upper T EndRoot EndFraction comma and of a number of integrals of the type integral StartFraction d t Over left parenthesis t minus tau right parenthesis StartRoot upper T EndRoot EndFraction period These integrals cannot in general be reduced to elementary functions, and are therefore new transcendents.

We will only add, before leaving this part of our subject, that the algebraical part of these integrals can be found by means of the elementary algebraical operations, as was the case with the rational part of the integral of a rational function, and with the algebraical part of the simple integrals considered in §§14—15.

FOOTNOTES:

[17] We now write b for g for the sake of symmetry in notation.

[18] See, for example, Bromwich, l.c., pp. 16 et seq.

[19] Cf. Jordan, Cours d'analyse, ed. 2, vol. 2, p. 21.

[20] A. G. Greenhill, A chapter in the integral calculus (Francis Hodgson, 1888), p. 12: Differential and integral calculus, p. 399.

[21] Bromwich, l.c., p. 16.

[22] The method sketched here is that followed by Stolz (see the references given on p. 21). Dr Bromwich's method is different in detail but the same in principle.

[23] That the roots of upper J equals 0 are real has been proved already (p.28) in a different manner.

[24] The superfluous root may be eliminated from the result by a trivial transformation, just as StartRoot 1 plus x squared EndRoot may be eliminated from arc sine StartFraction x Over StartRoot 1 plus x squared EndRoot EndFraction by writing this function in the form arc tangent x.

[25] Higher plane curves, p. 29.

[26] Salmon, ibid., p. 29. French genre, German Geschlecht.

[27] We suppose in what follows that the singularities of the curve are all ordinary nodes. The necessary modifications when this is not the case are not difficult to make. An ordinary multiple point of order k may be regarded as equivalent to one half k left parenthesis k minus 1 right parenthesis ordinary double points. A curve of degree n which has an ordinary multiple point of order n minus 1, equivalent to one half left parenthesis n minus 1 right parenthesis left parenthesis n minus 2 right parenthesis ordinary double points, is therefore unicursal. The theory of higher plane curves abounds in puzzling particular cases which have to be fitted into the general theory by more or less obvious conventions, and to give a satisfactory account of a complicated compound singularity is sometimes by no means easy. In the investigation which follows we confine ourselves to the simplest case.

[28] Salmon, l.c., p. 16.

[29] See Niewenglowski's Cours de géométrie analytique, vol. 2, p. 103. By way of illustration of the remark concerning particular cases in the footnote (4) to page 30, the reader may consider the example given by Niewenglowski in which x equals StartFraction t squared Over t squared minus 1 EndFraction comma y equals StartFraction t squared plus 1 Over t squared minus 1 EndFraction semicolon equations which appear to represent the straight line 2 x equals y plus 1 (part of the line only, if we consider only real values of t).

[30] Salmon, l.c., p. 54.

[31] This means of course that the equation obtained by substituting for x and y, in the equation of the line, their parametric expressions in terms of t, has a repeated root. This property is possessed by the tangent at an ordinary point and by any line through a cusp, but not by any line through a node except the two tangents.

[32] Salmon, l.c., p. 65.

[33] I owe this remark to Mr A. B. Mayne. Dr Bromwich has however pointed out to me that substantially the same argument is given by Mr W. A. Houston, 'Note on unicursal plane curves', Messenger of mathematics, vol. 28, 1899, pp. 187—189.

[34] See Ptaszycki, 'Extrait d'une lettre adressée à M. Hermite', Bulletin des sciences mathématiques, ser. 2, vol. 12, 1888, pp. 262—270: Appell and Goursat, Théorie des fonctions algébriques, p. 245.

[35] If p left parenthesis x right parenthesis is the least common multiple of the denominators of the coefficients of powers of u in normal upper Omega, then normal upper Omega left parenthesis x comma u right parenthesis p left parenthesis x right parenthesis equals chi left parenthesis x comma u right parenthesis comma where chi is a polynomial. Applying Lemma (2), we see that chi left parenthesis x comma u Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis equals 0, and so normal upper Omega left parenthesis x comma u Subscript s Baseline right parenthesis equals 0 period

[36] It is impossible that psi and StartFraction partial differential psi Over partial differential u EndFraction should both vanish for u equals u Subscript s, since psi is irreducible.

[37] 'Premier mémoire sur la détermination des intégrales dont la valeur est algébrique', Journal de l'École Polytechnique, vol. 14, cahier 22, 1833, pp. 124—148; 'Second mémoire...', ibid., pp. 149—193.

[38] Raffy, 'Sur les quadratures algébriques et logarithmiques', Annales de l'École Normale, ser. 3, vol. 2, 1885, pp. 185—206.

[39] 'Mémoire sur les transcendantes elliptiques considérées comme fonctions de leur amplitude', Journal de l'École Polytechnique, vol. 14, cahier 23, 1834, pp. 37—83. The proof may also be found in Bertrand's Calcul intégral, p. 99.

[40] See Liouville's memoir quoted on p. 45 (pp. 45 et seq.).

[41] The proof given by Laurent (Traité d'analyse, vol. 4, pp. 153 et seq.) appears at first sight to combine the advantages of both methods of proof, but unfortunately will not bear a closer examination.

[42] Second edition, vol. 1, pp. 267—269.

[43] 'Über diejenigen Curven, deren Coordinaten sich als elliptische Functionen eines Parameters darstellen lassen', Journal für Mathematik, vol. 64, 1865, pp. 210—270.

[44] See Hermite, Cours d'analyse, pp. 422—425.

[45] See Legendre, Traité des fonctions elliptiques, vol. 1, chs. 26—27, 32—33; Bertrand, Calcul intégral, pp. 67 et seq.; and Enneper, Elliptische Funktionen, note 1, where abundant references are given.

[46] There is a similar theory for curves of deficiency 2, in which upper X is of the sixth degree.

[47] See, e.g., Goursat, Cours d'analyse, ed. 2, vol. 1, pp. 257 et seq.


VI. Transcendental functions

1. The theory of the integration of transcendental functions is naturally much less complete than that of the integration of rational or even of algebraical functions. It is obvious from the nature of the case that this must be so, as there is no general theorem concerning transcendental functions which in any way corresponds to the theorem that any algebraical combination of algebraical functions may be regarded as a simple algebraical function, the root of an equation of a simple standard type.

It is indeed almost true to say that there is no general theory, or that the theory reduces to an enumeration of the few cases in which the integral may be transformed by an appropriate substitution into an integral of a rational or algebraical function. These few cases are however of great importance in applications.

2. (i) The integral integral upper F left parenthesis e Superscript a x Baseline comma e Superscript b x Baseline comma ellipsis comma e Superscript k x Baseline right parenthesis d x where upper F is an algebraical function, and a comma b comma ellipsis comma k commensurable numbers, can always be reduced to that of an algebraical function. In particular the integral integral upper R left parenthesis e Superscript a x Baseline comma e Superscript b x Baseline comma ellipsis comma e Superscript k x Baseline right parenthesis d x comma[Pg 53] where upper R is rational, is always an elementary function. In the first place a substitution of the type x equals alpha y will reduce it to the form integral upper R left parenthesis e Superscript y Baseline right parenthesis d y comma and then the substitution e Superscript y Baseline equals z will reduce this integral to the integral of a rational function.

In particular, since hyperbolic cosine x and hyperbolic sine x are rational functions of e Superscript x, and cosine x and sine x are rational functions of e Superscript i x, the integrals} integral upper R left parenthesis hyperbolic cosine x comma hyperbolic sine x right parenthesis d x comma integral upper R left parenthesis cosine x comma sine x right parenthesis d x are always elementary functions. In the second place the substitution just indicated is imaginary, and it is generally more convenient to use the substitution tangent one half x equals t comma which reduces the integral to that of a rational function, since cosine x equals StartFraction 1 minus t squared Over 1 plus t squared EndFraction comma sine x equals StartFraction 2 t Over 1 plus t squared EndFraction comma d x equals StartFraction 2 d t Over 1 plus t squared EndFraction period

(ii) The integrals StartLayout 1st Row  integral upper R left parenthesis hyperbolic cosine x comma hyperbolic sine x comma hyperbolic cosine 2 x comma ellipsis hyperbolic sine m x right parenthesis d x comma 2nd Row  integral upper R left parenthesis cosine x comma sine x comma cosine 2 x comma ellipsis sine m x right parenthesis d x comma EndLayout are included in the two standard integrals above.

Let us consider some further developments concerning the integral[48] integral upper R left parenthesis cosine x comma sine x right parenthesis d x period If we make the substitution z equals e Superscript i x, the subject of integration becomes a rational function upper H left parenthesis z right parenthesis, which we may suppose split up into

(a) a constant and certain positive and negative powers of z,

(b) groups of terms of the type StartFraction upper A 0 Over z minus a EndFraction plus StartFraction upper A 1 Over left parenthesis z minus a right parenthesis squared EndFraction plus ellipsis plus StartFraction upper A Subscript n Baseline Over left parenthesis z minus a right parenthesis Superscript n plus 1 Baseline EndFraction period left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis

The terms (i), when expressed in terms of x, give rise to a term sigma summation left parenthesis c Subscript k Baseline cosine k x plus d Subscript k Baseline sine k x right parenthesis period In the group (1) we put z equals e Superscript i x, a equals e Superscript i alpha and, using the equation StartFraction 1 Over z minus a EndFraction equals one half e Superscript minus i alpha Baseline left brace negative 1 minus i cotangent one half left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis right brace comma[Pg 54] we obtain a polynomial of degree n plus 1 in cotangent one half left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis. Since cotangent squared x equals negative 1 minus StartFraction d cotangent x Over d x EndFraction comma cotangent cubed x equals minus cotangent x minus one half StartFraction d Over d x EndFraction left parenthesis cotangent squared x right parenthesis comma ellipsis comma this polynomial may be transformed into the form upper C plus upper C 0 cotangent one half left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis plus upper C 1 StartFraction d Over d x EndFraction cotangent one half left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis plus ellipsis plus upper C Subscript n Baseline StartFraction d Superscript n Baseline Over d x Superscript n Baseline EndFraction cotangent one half left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis period

The function upper R left parenthesis cosine x comma sine x right parenthesis is now expressed as a sum of a number of terms each of which is immediately integrable. The integral is a rational function of cosine x and sine x if all the constants upper C 0 vanish; otherwise it includes a number of terms of the type 2 upper C 0 log sine one half left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis period

Let us suppose for simplicity that upper H left parenthesis z right parenthesis, when split up into partial fractions, contains no terms of the types upper C comma z Superscript m Baseline comma z Superscript negative m Baseline comma left parenthesis z minus a right parenthesis Superscript negative p Baseline left parenthesis p greater than 1 right parenthesis period Then upper R left parenthesis cosine x comma sine x right parenthesis equals upper C 0 cotangent one half left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis plus upper D 0 cotangent one half left parenthesis x minus beta right parenthesis plus ellipsis comma and the constants upper C 0 comma upper D 0 comma ellipsis may be determined by multiplying each side of the equation by sine one half left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis comma sine one half left parenthesis x minus beta right parenthesis comma ellipsis and making x tend to alpha comma beta comma ellipsis.

It is often convenient to use the equation cotangent one half left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis equals cotangent left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis plus c o s e c left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis which enables us to decompose the function upper R into two parts upper U left parenthesis x right parenthesis and upper V left parenthesis x right parenthesis such that upper U left parenthesis x plus pi right parenthesis equals upper U left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma upper V left parenthesis x plus pi right parenthesis equals minus upper V left parenthesis x right parenthesis period If upper R has the period pi, then upper V must vanish identically; if it changes sign when x is increased by pi, then upper U must vanish identically. Thus we find without difficulty that, if m less than n, StartFraction sine m x Over sine n x EndFraction equals StartFraction 1 Over 2 n EndFraction sigma summation Underscript 0 Overscript 2 n minus 1 Endscripts StartFraction left parenthesis negative 1 right parenthesis Superscript k Baseline sine m alpha Over sine left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis EndFraction equals StartFraction 1 Over n EndFraction sigma summation Underscript 0 Overscript n minus 1 Endscripts StartFraction left parenthesis negative 1 right parenthesis Superscript k Baseline sine m alpha Over sine left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis EndFraction comma or StartFraction sine m x Over sine n x EndFraction equals StartFraction 1 Over n EndFraction sigma summation Underscript 0 Overscript n minus 1 Endscripts left parenthesis negative 1 right parenthesis Superscript k Baseline sine m alpha cotangent left parenthesis x minus alpha right parenthesis comma where alpha equals StartFraction k pi Over n EndFraction, according as m plus n is odd or even.

Similarly StartLayout 1st Row  StartFraction 1 Over sine left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis sine left parenthesis x minus b right parenthesis sine left parenthesis x minus c right parenthesis EndFraction equals sigma summation StartFraction 1 Over sine left parenthesis a minus b right parenthesis sine left parenthesis a minus c right parenthesis sine left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis EndFraction comma 2nd Row  StartFraction sine left parenthesis x minus d right parenthesis Over sine left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis sine left parenthesis x minus b right parenthesis sine left parenthesis x minus c right parenthesis EndFraction equals sigma summation StartFraction sine left parenthesis a minus d right parenthesis Over sine left parenthesis a minus b right parenthesis sine left parenthesis a minus c right parenthesis EndFraction cotangent left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis period EndLayout

(iii) One of the most important integrals in applications is integral StartFraction d x Over a plus b cosine x EndFraction comma where a and b are real. This integral may be evaluated in the manner explained above, or by the transformation tangent one half x equals t. A more elegant method[Pg 55] is the following. If StartAbsoluteValue a EndAbsoluteValue greater than StartAbsoluteValue b EndAbsoluteValue, we suppose a positive, and use the transformation left parenthesis a plus b cosine x right parenthesis left parenthesis a minus b cosine y right parenthesis equals a squared minus b squared comma which leads to StartFraction d x Over a plus b cosine x EndFraction equals StartFraction d y Over StartRoot a squared minus b squared EndRoot EndFraction period If StartAbsoluteValue a EndAbsoluteValue less than StartAbsoluteValue b EndAbsoluteValue, we suppose b positive, and use the transformation left parenthesis b cosine x plus a right parenthesis left parenthesis b hyperbolic cosine y minus a right parenthesis equals b squared minus a squared period

The integral integral StartFraction d x Over a plus b cosine x plus c sine x EndFraction may be reduced to this form by the substitution x plus a equals y, where cotangent a equals StartFraction b Over c EndFraction. The forms of the integrals integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis a plus b cosine x right parenthesis Superscript n Baseline EndFraction comma integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis a plus b cosine x plus c sine x right parenthesis Superscript n Baseline EndFraction may be deduced by the use of formulae of reduction, or by differentiation with respect to a. The integral integral StartFraction d x Over left parenthesis upper A cosine squared x plus 2 upper B cosine x sine x plus upper C sine squared x right parenthesis Superscript n Baseline EndFraction is really of the same type, since upper A cosine squared x plus 2 upper B cosine x sine x plus upper C sine squared x equals one half left parenthesis upper A plus upper C right parenthesis plus one half left parenthesis upper A minus upper C right parenthesis cosine 2 x plus upper B sine 2 x period And similar methods may be applied to the corresponding integrals which contain hyperbolic functions, so that this type includes a large variety of integrals of common occurrence.

(iv) The same substitutions may of course be used when the subject of integration is an irrational function of cosine x and sine x, though sometimes it is better to use the substitutions cosine x equals t, sine x equals t, or tangent x equals t. Thus the integral integral upper R left parenthesis cosine x comma sine x comma StartRoot upper X EndRoot right parenthesis d x comma where upper X equals left parenthesis a comma b comma c comma f comma g comma h between cosine x comma sine x comma 1 right parenthesis squared comma is reduced to an elliptic integral by the substitution tangent one half x equals t. The most important integrals of this type are integral StartFraction upper R left parenthesis cosine x comma sine x right parenthesis d x Over StartRoot left parenthesis 1 minus k squared sine squared x EndRoot right parenthesis EndFraction comma integral StartFraction upper R left parenthesis cosine x comma sine x right parenthesis d x Over StartRoot left parenthesis alpha plus beta cosine x plus gamma sine x right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction period

3. The integral integral upper P left parenthesis x comma e Superscript a x Baseline comma e Superscript b x Baseline comma ellipsis comma e Superscript k x Baseline right parenthesis d x comma where a comma b comma ellipsis comma k are any numbers (commensurable or not), and upper P is a polynomial, is always an elementary function. For it is obvious[Pg 56] that the integral can be reduced to the sum of a finite number of integrals of the type integral x Superscript p Baseline e Superscript upper A x Baseline d x semicolon and integral x Superscript p Baseline e Superscript upper A x Baseline d x equals left parenthesis StartFraction partial differential Over partial differential upper A EndFraction right parenthesis Superscript p Baseline integral e Superscript upper A x Baseline d x equals left parenthesis StartFraction partial differential Over partial differential upper A EndFraction right parenthesis Superscript p Baseline StartFraction e Superscript upper A x Baseline Over upper A EndFraction period This type of integral includes a large variety of integrals, such as StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column integral x Superscript m Baseline left parenthesis cosine p x right parenthesis Superscript mu Baseline left parenthesis sine q x right parenthesis Superscript nu Baseline d x comma 2nd Column integral x Superscript m Baseline left parenthesis hyperbolic cosine p x right parenthesis Superscript mu Baseline left parenthesis hyperbolic sine q x right parenthesis Superscript nu Baseline d x comma 2nd Row 1st Column integral x Superscript m Baseline e Superscript minus alpha x Baseline left parenthesis cosine p x right parenthesis Superscript mu Baseline d x comma 2nd Column integral x Superscript m Baseline e Superscript minus alpha x Baseline left parenthesis sine q x right parenthesis Superscript nu Baseline d x comma EndLayout (m, mu, nu, being positive integers) for which formulae of reduction are given in text-books on the integral calculus.

Such integrals as integral upper P left parenthesis x comma log x right parenthesis d x comma integral upper P left parenthesis x comma arc sine x right parenthesis d x comma ellipsis comma where upper P is a polynomial, may be reduced to particular cases of the above general integral by the obvious substitutions x equals e Superscript y Baseline comma x equals sine y comma ellipsis period

4. Except for the two classes of functions considered in the three preceding paragraphs, there are no really general classes of transcendental functions which we can always integrate in finite terms, although of course there are innumerable particular forms which may be integrated by particular devices. There are however many classes of such integrals for which a systematic reduction theory may be given, analogous to the reduction theory for elliptic integrals. Such a reduction theory endeavours in each case

(i) to split up any integral of the class under consideration into the sum of a number of parts of which some are elementary and the others not;

(ii) to reduce the number of the latter terms to the least possible;

(iii) to prove that these terms are incapable of further reduction, and are genuinely new and independent transcendents.

As an example of this process we shall consider the integral integral e Superscript x Baseline upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x where upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis is a rational function of x.[49] The theory of partial[Pg 57] fractions enables us to decompose this integral into the sum of a number of terms upper A integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x minus a EndFraction d x comma ellipsis comma upper A Subscript m Baseline integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis Superscript m plus 1 Baseline EndFraction d x comma ellipsis comma upper B integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x minus b EndFraction d x comma ellipsis period

Since integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis Superscript m plus 1 Baseline EndFraction d x equals minus StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over m left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis Superscript m Baseline EndFraction plus StartFraction 1 Over m EndFraction integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis Superscript m Baseline EndFraction d x comma the integral may be further reduced so as to contain only

(i) a term e Superscript x Baseline upper S left parenthesis x right parenthesis where upper S left parenthesis x right parenthesis is a rational function;

(ii) a number of terms of the type alpha integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline d x Over x minus a EndFraction period If all the constants alpha vanish, then the integral can be calculated in the finite form e Superscript x Baseline upper S left parenthesis x right parenthesis. If they do not we can at any rate assert that the integral cannot be calculated in this form[50]. For no such relation as alpha integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline d x Over x minus a EndFraction plus beta integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline d x Over x minus b EndFraction plus ellipsis plus kappa integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline d x Over x minus k EndFraction equals e Superscript x Baseline upper T left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma where upper T is rational, can hold for all values of x. To see this it is only necessary to put x equals a plus h and to expand in ascending powers of h. Then StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column alpha integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline d x Over x minus a EndFraction 2nd Column equals alpha e Superscript a Baseline integral StartFraction e Superscript h Baseline Over h EndFraction d h 2nd Row 1st Column Blank 2nd Column equals alpha e Superscript a Baseline left parenthesis log h plus h plus ellipsis right parenthesis comma EndLayout and no logarithm can occur in any of the other terms[51].

Consider, for example, the integral integral e Superscript x Baseline left parenthesis 1 minus StartFraction 1 Over x EndFraction right parenthesis cubed d x period This is equal to e Superscript x Baseline minus 3 integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x EndFraction d x plus 3 integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x squared EndFraction d x minus integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x cubed EndFraction d x comma and since 3 integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x squared EndFraction d x equals minus StartFraction 3 e Superscript x Baseline Over x EndFraction plus 3 integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x EndFraction d x comma and minus integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x cubed EndFraction d x equals StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over 2 x squared EndFraction minus one half integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x squared EndFraction d x equals StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over 2 x squared EndFraction plus StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over 2 x EndFraction minus one half integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x EndFraction d x comma[Pg 58] we obtain finally integral e Superscript x Baseline left parenthesis 1 minus StartFraction 1 Over x EndFraction right parenthesis cubed d x equals e Superscript x Baseline left parenthesis 1 minus StartFraction 7 Over 2 x EndFraction plus StartFraction 1 Over 2 x squared EndFraction right parenthesis minus one half integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x EndFraction d x period Similarly it will be found that integral e Superscript x Baseline left parenthesis 1 minus StartFraction 2 Over x EndFraction right parenthesis squared d x equals 2 e Superscript x Baseline left parenthesis one half minus StartFraction 2 Over x EndFraction right parenthesis comma this integral being an elementary function.

Since integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x minus a EndFraction d x equals e Superscript a Baseline integral StartFraction e Superscript y Baseline Over y EndFraction d y comma if x equals y plus a, all integrals of this kind may be made to depend on known functions and on the single transcendent integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x EndFraction d x comma which is usually denoted by upper L i e Superscript x and is of great importance in the theory of numbers. The question of course arises as to whether this integral is not itself an elementary function.

Now Liouville[52] has proved the following theorem: 'if y is any algebraical function of x, and integral e Superscript x Baseline y d x is an elementary function, then integral e Superscript x Baseline y d x equals e Superscript x Baseline left parenthesis alpha plus beta y plus ellipsis plus lamda y Superscript n minus 1 Baseline right parenthesis comma alpha comma beta comma ellipsis comma lamda being rational functions of x and n the degree of the algebraical equation which determines y as a function of x'.

Liouville's proof rests on the same general principles as do those of the corresponding theorems concerning the integral integral y d x. It will be observed that no logarithmic terms can occur, and that the theorem is therefore very similar to that which holds for integral y d x in the simple case in which the integral is algebraical. The argument which shows that no logarithmic terms occur is substantially the same as that which shows that, when they occur in the integral of an algebraical function, they must occur linearly. In this case the occurrence of the exponential factor precludes even this possibility, since differentiation will not eliminate logarithms when they occur in the form e Superscript x Baseline log f left parenthesis x right parenthesis period

[Pg 59]

In particular, if y is a rational function, then the integral must be of the form e Superscript x Baseline upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis and this we have already seen to be impossible. Hence the 'logarithm-integral' upper L i e Superscript x Baseline equals integral StartFraction e Superscript x Baseline Over x EndFraction d x equals integral Overscript e Superscript x Baseline Endscripts StartFraction d y Over log y EndFraction is really a new transcendent, which cannot be expressed in finite terms by means of elementary functions; and the same is true of all integrals of the type integral e Superscript x Baseline upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x which cannot be calculated in finite terms by means of the process of reduction sketched above.

The integrals integral sine x upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x comma integral cosine x upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis d x may be treated in a similar manner. Either the integral is of the form cosine x upper R 1 left parenthesis x right parenthesis plus sine x upper R 2 left parenthesis x right parenthesis or it consists of a term of this kind together with a number of terms which involve the transcendents integral StartFraction cosine x Over x EndFraction d x comma integral StartFraction sine x Over x EndFraction d x comma which are called the cosine-integral and sine-integral of x, and denoted by upper C i x and upper S i x. These transcendents are of course not fundamentally distinct from the logarithm-integral.

5. Liouville has gone further and shown that it is always possible to determine whether the integral integral left parenthesis upper P e Superscript p Baseline plus upper Q e Superscript q Baseline plus ellipsis plus upper T e Superscript t Baseline right parenthesis d x comma where upper P comma upper Q comma ellipsis comma upper T comma p comma q comma ellipsis comma t are algebraical functions, is an elementary function, and to obtain the integral in case it is one[53]. The most general theorem which has been proved in this region of mathematics, and which is also due to Liouville, is the following.

[Pg 60]

'If y comma z comma ellipsis are functions of x whose differential coefficients are algebraical functions of x comma y comma z comma ellipsis, and upper F denotes an algebraical function, and if integral upper F left parenthesis x comma y comma z comma ellipsis right parenthesis d x is an elementary function, then it is of the form t plus upper A log u plus upper B log v plus ellipsis comma where t comma u comma v comma ellipsis are algebraical functions of x comma y comma z comma ellipsis. If the differential coefficients are rational in x comma y comma z comma ellipsis, and upper F is rational, then t comma u comma v comma ellipsis are rational in x comma y comma z comma ellipsis.'

Thus for example the theorem applies to upper F left parenthesis x comma e Superscript x Baseline comma e Superscript e Super Superscript x Superscript Baseline comma log x comma log log x comma cosine x comma sine x right parenthesis comma since, if the various arguments of upper F are denoted by x, y, z, xi, eta, zeta, theta, we have StartLayout 1st Row  StartFraction d y Over d x EndFraction equals y comma StartFraction d z Over d x EndFraction equals y z comma StartFraction d xi Over d x EndFraction equals StartFraction 1 Over x EndFraction comma 2nd Row  StartFraction d eta Over d x EndFraction equals StartFraction 1 Over x xi EndFraction comma StartFraction d zeta Over d x EndFraction equals minus StartRoot left parenthesis 1 minus zeta squared right parenthesis EndRoot comma StartFraction d theta Over d x EndFraction equals StartRoot left parenthesis 1 minus theta squared right parenthesis EndRoot period EndLayout The proof of the theorem does not involve ideas different in principle from those which have been employed continually throughout the preceding pages.

6. As a final example of the manner in which these ideas may be applied, we shall consider the following question:

'in what circumstances is integral upper R left parenthesis x right parenthesis log x d x comma where upper R is rational, an elementary function?'

In the first place the integral must be of the form upper R 0 left parenthesis x comma log x right parenthesis plus upper A 1 log upper R 1 left parenthesis x comma log x right parenthesis plus upper A 2 log upper R 2 left parenthesis x comma log x right parenthesis plus ellipsis period A general consideration of the form of the differential coefficient of this expression, in which log x must only occur linearly and multiplied by a rational function, leads us to anticipate that (i) upper R 0 left parenthesis x comma log x right parenthesis must be of the form upper S left parenthesis x right parenthesis left parenthesis log x right parenthesis squared plus upper T left parenthesis x right parenthesis log x plus upper U left parenthesis x right parenthesis comma where upper S, upper T, and upper U are rational, and (ii) upper R 1 comma upper R 2 comma ellipsis must be rational functions of x only; so that the integral can be expressed in the form upper S left parenthesis x right parenthesis left parenthesis log x right parenthesis squared plus upper T left parenthesis x right parenthesis log x plus upper U left parenthesis x right parenthesis plus sigma summation upper B Subscript k Baseline log left parenthesis x minus a Subscript k Baseline right parenthesis period

[Pg 61]

Differentiating, and comparing the result with the subject of integration, we obtain the equations upper S prime equals 0 comma StartFraction 2 upper S Over x EndFraction plus upper T Superscript prime Baseline equals upper R comma StartFraction upper T Over x EndFraction plus upper U prime plus sigma summation StartFraction upper B Subscript k Baseline Over x minus a Subscript k Baseline EndFraction equals 0 period Hence upper S is a constant, say one half upper C, and upper T equals integral left parenthesis upper R minus StartFraction upper C Over x EndFraction right parenthesis d x period

We can always determine by means of elementary operations, as in iv., §4, whether this integral is rational for any value of upper C or not. If not, then the given integral is not an elementary function. If upper T is rational, then we must calculate its value, and substitute it in the integral upper U equals minus integral left brace StartFraction upper T Over x EndFraction plus sigma summation StartFraction upper B Subscript k Baseline Over x minus a Subscript k Baseline EndFraction right brace d x equals minus integral StartFraction upper T Over x EndFraction d x minus sigma summation upper B Subscript k Baseline log left parenthesis x minus a Subscript k Baseline right parenthesis comma which must be rational for some value of the arbitrary constant implied in upper T. We can calculate the rational part of integral StartFraction upper T Over x EndFraction d x colon the transcendental part must be cancelled by the logarithmic terms sigma summation upper B Subscript k Baseline log left parenthesis x minus a Subscript k Baseline right parenthesis period

The necessary and sufficient condition that the original integral should be an elementary function is therefore that upper R should be of the form StartFraction upper C Over x EndFraction plus StartFraction d Over d x EndFraction StartSet upper R 1 left parenthesis x right parenthesis EndSet comma where upper C is a constant and upper R 1 is rational. That the integral is in this case such a function becomes obvious if we integrate by parts, for integral left parenthesis StartFraction upper C Over x EndFraction plus upper R prime 1 right parenthesis log x d x equals one half upper C left parenthesis log x right parenthesis squared plus upper R 1 log x minus integral StartFraction upper R 1 Over x EndFraction d x period

In particular left parenthesis i right parenthesis integral StartFraction log x Over x minus a EndFraction d x comma left parenthesis ii right parenthesis integral StartFraction log x Over left parenthesis x minus a right parenthesis left parenthesis x minus b right parenthesis EndFraction d x comma are not elementary functions unless in (i) a equals 0 and in (ii) b equals a. If the integral is elementary then the integration can always be carried out, with the same reservation as was necessary in the case of rational functions.

It is evident that the problem considered in this paragraph is but one of a whole class of similar problems. The reader will find it instructive to formulate and consider such problems for himself.

[Pg 62]

7. It will be obvious by now that the number of classes of transcendental functions whose integrals are always elementary is very small, and that such integrals as StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column integral f left parenthesis x comma e Superscript x Baseline right parenthesis d x comma 2nd Column integral f left parenthesis x comma log x right parenthesis d x 2nd Row 1st Column integral f left parenthesis x comma cosine x comma sine x right parenthesis d x comma 2nd Column integral f left parenthesis e Superscript x Baseline comma cosine x comma sine x right parenthesis d x 3rd Row 1st Column midline horizontal ellipsis midline horizontal ellipsis midline horizontal ellipsis midline horizontal ellipsis midline horizontal ellipsis midline horizontal ellipsis midline horizontal ellipsis EndLayout where f is algebraical, or even rational, are generally new transcendents. These new transcendents, like the transcendents (such as the elliptic integrals) which arise from the integration of algebraical functions, are in many cases of great interest and importance. They may often be expressed by means of infinite series or definite integrals, or their properties may be studied by means of the integral expressions which define them. The very fact that such a function is not an elementary function in so far enhances its importance. And when such functions have been introduced into analysis new problems of integration arise in connection with them. We may enquire, for example, under what circumstances an elliptic integral or elliptic function, or a combination of such functions with elementary functions, can be integrated in finite terms by means of elementary and elliptic functions. But before we can be in a position to restate the fundamental problem of the Integral Calculus in any such more general form, it is essential that we should have disposed of the particular problem formulated in Section III.

FOOTNOTES:

[48] See Hermite, Cours d'analyse, pp. 320 et seq.

[49] See Hermite, Cours d'analyse, pp. 352 et seq.

[50] See the remarks at the end of this paragraph.

[51] It is not difficult to give a purely algebraical proof on the lines of iv., §2.

[52] 'Mémoire sur l'intégration d'une classe de fonctions transcendantes', Journal für Mathematik, vol. 13, 1835, pp. 93—118. Liouville shows how the integral, when of this form, may always be calculated by elementary methods.

[Pg 63]

[53] An interesting particular result is that the 'error function' integral e Superscript minus x squared Baseline d x is not an elementary function.


APPENDIX I

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following is a list of the memoirs by Abel, Liouville and Tschebyschef which have reference to the subject matter of this tract.

N. H. Abel

1. 'Über die Integration der Differential-Formel StartFraction rho d x Over StartRoot upper R EndRoot EndFraction, wenn upper R und rho ganze Funktionen sind', Journal für Mathematik, vol. 1, 1826, pp. 185—221 (Œuvres, vol. 1, pp. 104—144).

2. 'Précis d'une théorie des fonctions elliptiques', Journal für Mathematik, vol. 4, 1829, pp. 236—277, 309—348 (Œuvres, vol. 1, pp. 518—617).

3. 'Théorie des transcendantes elliptiques', Œuvres, vol. 2, pp. 87—188.

J. Liouville

1. 'Mémoire sur la classification des transcendantes, et sur l'impossibilité d'exprimer les racines de certaines équations en fonction finie explicite des coefficients', Journal de mathématiques, ser. 1, vol. 2, 1837, pp. 56—104.

2. 'Nouvelles recherches sur la détermination des intégrales dont la valeur est algébrique', ibid., vol. 3, 1838, pp. 20—24 (previously published in the Comptes Rendus, 28 Aug. 1837).

3. 'Suite du mémoire sur la classification des transcendantes, et sur l'impossibilité d'exprimer les racines de certaines équations en fonction finie explicite des coefficients', ibid., pp. 523—546.

4. 'Note sur les transcendantes elliptiques considérées comme fonctions de leur module', ibid., vol. 5, 1840, pp. 34—37.

5. 'Mémoire sur les transcendantes elliptiques considérées comme fonctions de leur module', ibid., pp. 441—464.

6. 'Premier mémoire sur la détermination des intégrales dont la valeur est algébrique', Journal de l'École Polytechnique, vol. 14, cahier 22, 1833, pp. 124—148 (also published in the Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l'Académie des Sciences, vol. 5, 1838, pp. 76—151).

7. 'Second mémoire sur la détermination des intégrales dont la valeur est algébrique', ibid., pp. 149—193 (also published as above).

[Pg 64]

8. 'Mémoire sur les transcendantes elliptiques considérées comme fonctions de leur amplitude', ibid., cahier 23, 1834, pp. 37—83.

9. 'Mémoire sur l'intégration d'une classe de fonctions transcendantes', Journal für Mathematik, vol. 13, 1835, pp. 93—118.

P. Tschebyschef

1. 'Sur l'intégration des différentielles irrationnelles', Journal de mathématiques, ser. 1, vol. 18, 1853, pp. 87—111 (Œuvres, vol. 1, pp. 147—168).

2. 'Sur l'intégration des différentielles qui contiennent une racine carrée d'une polynome du troisième ou du quatrième degré', ibid., ser. 2, vol. 2, 1857, pp. 1—42 (Œuvres, vol. 1, pp. 171—200; also published in the Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St-Pétersbourg, ser. 6, vol. 6, 1857, pp. 203—232).

3. 'Sur l'intégration de la différentielle StartFraction x plus upper A Over StartRoot x Superscript 4 Baseline plus alpha x cubed plus beta x squared plus gamma x plus delta EndRoot EndFraction d x', ibid., ser. 2, vol. 9, 1864, pp. 225—241 (Œuvres, vol. 1, pp. 517—530; previously published in the Bulletin de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St-Pétersbourg, vol. 3, 1861, pp. 1—12).

4. 'Sur l'intégration des différentielles irrationnelles', ibid., pp. 242—246 (Œuvres, vol. 1, pp. 511—514; previously published in the Comptes Rendus, 9 July 1860).

5. 'Sur l'intégration des différentielles qui contiennent une racine cubique' (Œuvres, vol. 1, pp. 563—608; previously published only in Russian).

Other memoirs which may be consulted are:

A. Clebsch

'Über diejenigen Curven, deren Coordinaten sich als elliptische Functionen eines Parameters darstellen lassen', Journal für Mathematik, vol. 64, 1865, pp. 210—270.

J. Dolbnia

'Sur les intégrales pseudo-elliptiques d'Abel', Journal de mathématiques, ser. 4, vol. 6, 1890, pp. 293—311.

Sir A. G. Greenhill

'Pseudo-elliptic integrals and their dynamical applications', Proc. London Math. Soc., ser. 1, vol. 25, 1894, pp. 195—304.

G. H. Hardy

'Properties of logarithmico-exponential functions', Proc. London Math. Soc., ser. 2, vol. 10, 1910, pp. 54—90.

L. Königsberger

'Bemerkungen zu Liouville's Classificirung der Transcendenten', Mathematische Annalen, vol. 28, 1886, pp. 483—492.

[Pg 65]

L. Raffy

'Sur les quadratures algébriques et logarithmiques', Annales de l'École Normale, ser. 3, vol. 2, 1885, pp. 185—206.

K. Weierstrass

'Über die Integration algebraischer Differentiale vermittelst Logarithmen', Monatsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1857, pp. 148—157 (Werke, vol. 1, pp. 227—232).

G. Zolotareff

'Sur la méthode d'intégration de M. Tschebyschef', Journal de mathématiques, ser. 2, vol. 19, 1874, pp. 161—188.

Further information concerning pseudo-elliptic integrals, and degenerate cases of Abelian integrals generally, will be found in a number of short notes by Dolbnia, Kapteyn and Ptaszycki in the Bulletin des sciences mathématiques, and by Goursat, Gunther, Picard, Poincaré, and Raffy in the Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France, in Legendre's Traité des functions elliptiques (vol. 1, ch. 26), in Halphen's Traité des fonctions elliptiques (vol. 2, ch. 14), and in Enneper's Elliptische Funktionen. The literature concerning the general theory of algebraical functions and their integrals is too extensive to be summarised here: the reader may be referred to Appell and Goursat's Théorie des fonctions algébriques, and Wirtinger's article Algebraische Funktionen und ihre Integrale in the Encyclopädie der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, ii} B 2.


[Pg 66]

APPENDIX II

ON ABEL'S PROOF OF THE THEOREM OF V., §11

Abel's proof (Œuvres, vol. 1, p. 545) is as follows[54]:

We have psi left parenthesis x comma u right parenthesis equals 0 comma left parenthesis 1 right parenthesis where psi is an irreducible polynomial of degree m in u. If we make use of the equation f left parenthesis x comma y right parenthesis equals 0, we can introduce y into this equation, and write it in the form phi left parenthesis x comma y comma u right parenthesis equals 0 comma left parenthesis 2 right parenthesis where phi is a polynomial in the three variables x, y, and u[55]; and we can suppose phi, like psi, of degree m in u and irreducible, that is to say not divisible by any polynomial of the same form which is not a constant multiple of phi or itself a constant.

From f equals 0, phi equals 0 we deduce StartFraction partial differential f Over partial differential x EndFraction plus StartFraction partial differential f Over partial differential y EndFraction StartFraction d y Over d x EndFraction equals 0 comma StartFraction partial differential phi Over partial differential x EndFraction plus StartFraction partial differential phi Over partial differential y EndFraction StartFraction d y Over d x EndFraction plus StartFraction partial differential phi Over partial differential u EndFraction StartFraction d u Over d x EndFraction equals 0 semicolon and, eliminating StartFraction d y Over d x EndFraction, we obtain an equation of the form StartFraction d u Over d x EndFraction equals StartFraction lamda left parenthesis x comma y comma u right parenthesis Over mu left parenthesis x comma y comma u right parenthesis EndFraction comma where lamda and mu are polynomials in x, y, and u. And in order that u should be an integral of y it is necessary and sufficient that lamda minus y mu equals 0 period left parenthesis 3 right parenthesis

Abel now applies Lemma (2) of §11, or rather its analogue for polynomials in u whose coefficients are polynomials in x and y, to the two polynomials phi and lamda minus y mu, and infers that all the roots u comma u prime comma ellipsis of phi equals 0 satisfy (3). From this he deduces that u comma u prime comma ellipsis are all integrals of y, and so that StartFraction u plus u prime plus ellipsis Over m plus 1 EndFraction left parenthesis 4 right parenthesis[Pg 67] is an integral of y. As (4) is a symmetric function of the roots of (2), it is a rational function of x and y, whence his conclusion follows[56].

It will be observed that the hypothesis that (2) does actually involve y is essential, if we are to avoid the absurd conclusion that u is necessarily a rational function of x only. On the other hand it is not obvious how the presence of y in phi affects the other steps in the argument.

The crucial inference is that which asserts that because the equations phi equals 0 and lamda minus y mu equals 0, considered as equations in u, have a root in common, and phi is irreducible, therefore lamda minus y mu is divisible by phi. This inference is invalid.

We could only apply the lemma in this way if the equation (3) were satisfied by one of the roots of (2) identically, that is to say for all values of x and y. But this is not the case. The equations are satisfied by the same value of u only when x and y are connected by the equation (1).

Suppose, for example, that y equals StartFraction 1 Over StartRoot left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis EndRoot EndFraction comma u equals 2 StartRoot left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis EndRoot period Then we may take StartLayout 1st Row 1st Column f 2nd Column equals left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis y squared minus 1 comma 2nd Row 1st Column psi 2nd Column equals u squared minus 4 left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis comma 3rd Row 1st Column and phi 2nd Column equals u y minus 2 period EndLayout Differentiating the equations f equals 0 and phi equals 0, and eliminating StartFraction d y Over d x EndFraction, we find StartFraction d u Over d x EndFraction equals StartFraction u Over 2 left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis EndFraction equals StartFraction lamda Over mu EndFraction period Thus phi equals u y minus 2 comma lamda minus y mu equals u minus 2 y left parenthesis 1 plus x right parenthesis semicolon and these polynomials have a common factor only in virtue of the equation f equals 0.

FOOTNOTES:

[54] The theorem with which Abel is engaged is a very much more general theorem.

[55] 'Or, au lieu de supposer ces coefficiens rationnels en x, nous les supposerons rationnels en x, y; car cette supposition permise simplifiera beaucoup le raisonnement'.

[56] Bertrand (Calcul intégral, ch. 5) replaces the last step in Abel's argument by the observation that if u and u prime are both integrals of y then u minus u prime is constant (cf. p. 39, bottom). It follows that the degree of the equation which defines u can be decreased, which contradicts the hypothesis that it is irreducible.

CAMBRIDGE:

PRINTED BY PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESS

FOR THE UNIVERSITY PRESS