Maybe it's off topic but I'd like to give the answer of Mathematica to the question "how to find the antiderivative in closed form, and how to prove it"
The antiderivative calculated by Mathematica is given by
ad = Integrate[1/Sqrt[1 + x^3 ], x]
(*
Out[347]= (2 (-1)^(1/6) Sqrt[-(-1)^(1/6) ((-1)^(2/3) + x)] Sqrt[
1 + (-1)^(1/3) x + (-1)^(2/3) x^2]
EllipticF[ArcSin[Sqrt[-(-1)^(5/6) (1 + x)]/3^(1/4)], (-1)^(1/3)])/(3^(
1/4) Sqrt[1 + x^3])
*)
The result consists of an elliptic integral of the first kind and some square root factors.
This looks a bit messy at first sight but it turns out that the square root factor cancel out.
Mathematica's (Full)Simplify
does not simplify the expression, but my trick is to simplify the square of the expression in question.
FullSimplify[ad^2]
(*
Out[381]= (4 (-1)^(1/6)
EllipticF[ArcSin[Sqrt[-(-1)^(5/6) (1 + x)]/3^(1/4)], (-1)^(1/3)]^2)/Sqrt[3]
*)
and take the square root afterwards (by hand). Then the antiderivative is
ad1 = (2 (-1)^(1/12)/3^(1/4)) EllipticF[
ArcSin[Sqrt[-(-1)^(5/6) (1 + x)]/3^(1/4)], (-1)^(1/3)]
Mathematica's help tells us "EllipticF
is the inverse of JacobiAmplitude
. If $\phi=\mathrm{am}(u|m)$ then $u=F(\phi|m)$". Hence ad1 can can be expressed differently (as J. M. has ingeniously elaborated here).
Ok, now the proof, that ad1 is in fact an antiderivative (up to an additive constant, of course), differentiating ad1 with respect to x gives
D[ad, x]; (* -> horrible expression *)
Simplifying this, using my "square sandwiching trick" again, gives
FullSimplify[dad^2]
(*
Out[392]= 1/(1 + x^3)
*)
which completes the proof.