 Is true randomness and the physical ChurchTuring thesis incompatible?
 Can a (root,nonce) Bitcoin pair serve as a rare prime in Koiran's Nullstellensatz protocol?
 What's the best way to add the LESS preprocessor to a WordPress theme?
 Multisite Widget/Content
 How to add a new domain to an existing single site WordPress server?
 Own Theme custom CSS does not display in editor but works in page
 getting logged in user info (wpload.php) from parent directory
 Wordpress automatic update error. Download failed : SSL certificate problem: unable to get local issuer certificate, “Installation Failed”
 Set stock status thru SQL EVENT
 How to Access a Field of Pod if there is no relationship between it and another?
 redirect after account activation for forum using bbpress and buddypress
 How to prevent hotlinking with htaccess in Wordpress and why most common use about it doesn't work?
 Blank screen after moving WordPress to new server with same domain name
 virtualbox centos 7 kernel issue
 Running multiple OpenVPN servers in different locations for the same network
 suppress grep directory warnings globally
 How can I combine multiple 7z archives into one?
 How to use sed in a loop to input variable values?
 Permanently adjusting RHEL 6 timezone remotely
 Unexpected nonnull encoding of /proc/
/cmdline
Integration gives ComplexInfinity when it shouldn't
A simple example of my problem is that
Assuming[k ∈ Reals, Integrate[Exp[l]/((1 + Exp[l])*Exp[k*l]), l]] /. {k > 2}
gives ComplexInfinity while
Integrate[Exp[l]/((1 + Exp[l])*Exp[2*l]), l]
gives the correct answer. I would like to get the correct answer in the first case as well. Any suggestions?
I'm using Mathematica 6 on a Windows XP PC.
Failed attempts to bypass the problem
Defining Riemann integration as a separate function using Sum and Limit
Using Assumptions in preamble, putting Assuming[] around Integrate, using Integrate[f,x,Assumptions>{x,params}\in Reals]
Using FunctionInterpolation on the function to be integrated before applying the (definite) integral
Expanding the function to be integrated with Series before integrating
Have to hand it to Mathematica, at least it is consistent.
The reason this happens, is because Hypergeometric2F1[1, 1  k, 2  k, E^z] is infinity at $k=2$
Assuming[Element[k, Integers] And k > 0,Integrate[Ex

The reason this happens, is because Hypergeometric2F1[1, 1  k, 2  k, E^z] is infinity at $k=2$
Assuming[Element[k, Integers] And k > 0,Integrate[Exp[z]/((1 + Exp[z])*Exp[k*z]), z]]
Hypergeometric2F1[1, 1  k, 2  k, E^z] /. k > 2
When you wrote
Integrate[Exp[z]/((1 + Exp[z])*Exp[2*z]), z]
Then M went through a different path, since now $k=2$ and it did not need to use Hypergeometric2F1 for the result.
May be relevant, in the help, it says under possible issues for Hypergeometric2F1 see the assumptions on variables used. When they are assumed to be positive integers vs. default complex numbers.
I thought by using assumptions that $k$ is positive integer then this might not make Integrate use Hypergeometric2F1 and go through the same path it did for $k=2$, but for some reason, it still uses this function. May be I did not use the assumptions for Integrate correctly. Just want to add that this is a little strange, but sometimes I feel sorry for Integrate, as I read i
20180313 17:24:24 
The difference in the integrands is fundamentally important. The presence of $k$ makes a difference, apparently, in the way the integration algorithm arrives at an antiderivative.
(For instance, if the ratio of the exponents in Exp[k l] and Exp[l], i.e., k l / l = k, is rational, then the antiderivative can be expressed in terms of elementary functions; otherwise it seems not.)
A way that seems it might be convenient rests on recognizing the nature of the problem. Define a function to separate out the cases when k is a rational number or not:
myIntegral[k : _Integer  _Rational] :=
myIntegral[k] = Integrate[Exp[l]/((1 + Exp[l])*Exp[k*l]), l];
myIntegral[k_?NumericQ] :=
Integrate[Exp[l]/((1 + Exp[l])*Exp[k*l]), l];
Then, if you want, you can wrap both in a piecewise expression:
integral = Piecewise[{
{myIntegral[k], k \[Element] Rationals},
{Integrate[ Exp[l]/((1 + Exp[l])*Exp[k*l]), l], True}}]
integral /. k > 2
(* E^l + Log[1 + E^l] *)
There may be other ways
20180313 17:32:19 
As it turns out, making the substitution $u=\exp l$, manually integrating by parts, applying the Pfaff transformation to the resulting hypergeometric function, and then undoing the substitutions, will get you a usable form:
Simplify[(u^(1  k)/(1  k) 1/(1 + u) +
Integrate[u^(1  k)/(1  k) 1/(1 + u)^2, u] /.
Hypergeometric2F1[a_, b_, c_, z_] :>
(1  z)^(c  a  b) Hypergeometric2F1[c  a, c  b, c, z]) /.
u > Exp[l], k ∈ Integers]
(E^(l  k l) ((1 + E^l) (1 + k) Hypergeometric2F1[1, 1, 1 + k, 1/(1 + E^l)] 
k ((1 + E^l) (1 + k) + Hypergeometric2F1[1, 2, 2 + k, 1/(1 + E^l)])))/
((1 + E^l)^2 k (1 + k^2))
which now works for $k>1$:
sander[k_, l_] :=
(E^(l  k l) ((1 + E^l) (1 + k) Hypergeometric2F1[1, 1, 1 + k, 1/(1 + E^l)] 
k ((1 + E^l) (1 + k) + Hypergeometric2F1[1, 2, 2 + k, 1/(1 + E^l)])))/
((1 + E^l)^2 k (1 + k^2))
And @@ Table[FullSimplify[Integrate[Exp[l]/((1 + Exp[l])*Exp[k*l]), l] == sander[k, l],
20180313 17:57:00 
Your function appears to have singularities at integer values:
DiscretePlot[Integrate[Exp[l]/((1 + Exp[l])*Exp[k*l]), l] /. l > 1,
{k, 1, 5, 0.01}] // Quiet
Are you sure of your expected result?
20180313 18:33:25