Choosing which technique to use to solve multiple integrals?
There are at least two ways to solve double integrals. One way is to use interated integrals, based on Fubini's, or similar theorems. The other way is to reduce the double integral to a line (curve) integral using something like Green's theorem.
How do you choose which technique to use? Green's theorem appears to work best in a conservative force field, that is path independent. So do you identify such situations by seeing whether the associated partial derivatives integrate into exact equations? Or does it have something to do with limits of integration?
Ditto for choosing between iterated triple integrals and surface integrals using e.g. Stokes' Theorem.
integration
asked Jul 12 '14 at 17:20
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
add a comment |
There are at least two ways to solve double integrals. One way is to use interated integrals, based on Fubini's, or similar theorems. The other way is to reduce the double integral to a line (curve) integral using something like Green's theorem.
How do you choose which technique to use? Green's theorem appears to work best in a conservative force field, that is path independent. So do you identify such situations by seeing whether the associated partial derivatives integrate into exact equations? Or does it have something to do with limits of integration?
Ditto for choosing between iterated triple integrals and surface integrals using e.g. Stokes' Theorem.
integration
asked Jul 12 '14 at 17:20
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
add a comment |
There are at least two ways to solve double integrals. One way is to use interated integrals, based on Fubini's, or similar theorems. The other way is to reduce the double integral to a line (curve) integral using something like Green's theorem.
How do you choose which technique to use? Green's theorem appears to work best in a conservative force field, that is path independent. So do you identify such situations by seeing whether the associated partial derivatives integrate into exact equations? Or does it have something to do with limits of integration?
Ditto for choosing between iterated triple integrals and surface integrals using e.g. Stokes' Theorem.
integration
asked Jul 12 '14 at 17:20
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
There are at least two ways to solve double integrals. One way is to use interated integrals, based on Fubini's, or similar theorems. The other way is to reduce the double integral to a line (curve) integral using something like Green's theorem.
How do you choose which technique to use? Green's theorem appears to work best in a conservative force field, that is path independent. So do you identify such situations by seeing whether the associated partial derivatives integrate into exact equations? Or does it have something to do with limits of integration?
Ditto for choosing between iterated triple integrals and surface integrals using e.g. Stokes' Theorem.
integration
integration
asked Jul 12 '14 at 17:20
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
asked Jul 12 '14 at 17:20
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
edited Jul 12 '14 at 17:39
Tom Au
asked Jul 12 '14 at 17:20
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
asked Jul 12 '14 at 17:20
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
asked Jul 12 '14 at 17:20
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
1,2651333
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
It pretty much just depends on the problem! I like to stick with line integrals in the plane, however its not always best especially when the area is expressed easily as double integral. Same reasoning applies to Stoke's theorem and the Divergence theorem. However, I almost always prefer to work with volume integrals over surface integrals with respect to the divergence theorem. In the end I always end up doing a bit of analysis on the problem, i.e. examining the vector field and surface before making a choice.
answered Jul 12 '14 at 17:51
ClassicStyleClassicStyle
1,0272716
add a comment |
When you are talking about things like Green's theorem, Stokes' Theorem, etc., you are talking about a flow of matter from a bounded area or volume across a curve or surface represented by a membrane.
There are two ways to measure this "flow." One is to measure the changes in matter within each unit of volume or area and integrate them. The other is to measure the amount of "flow" across the boundary.
Because it is one order of magnitude lower, measuring and integrating "flow" across the curve, boundary, surface or membrane is usually easier than measuring and integrating flow from each area or volume, all other things being equal.
The "all other things being equal" fails to hold when there are "singularities," or leaks, in the area or surface, often involving the origin (the zero vector), or some point that maps to the origin. That's because matter is not "conserved" (within the relevant region), so measuring flow across boundaries doesn't work. In these cases, the higher order integral works better as a measure of flow, even if it is the more difficult computation.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 21:11
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f865271%2fchoosing-which-technique-to-use-to-solve-multiple-integrals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It pretty much just depends on the problem! I like to stick with line integrals in the plane, however its not always best especially when the area is expressed easily as double integral. Same reasoning applies to Stoke's theorem and the Divergence theorem. However, I almost always prefer to work with volume integrals over surface integrals with respect to the divergence theorem. In the end I always end up doing a bit of analysis on the problem, i.e. examining the vector field and surface before making a choice.
answered Jul 12 '14 at 17:51
ClassicStyleClassicStyle
1,0272716
add a comment |
It pretty much just depends on the problem! I like to stick with line integrals in the plane, however its not always best especially when the area is expressed easily as double integral. Same reasoning applies to Stoke's theorem and the Divergence theorem. However, I almost always prefer to work with volume integrals over surface integrals with respect to the divergence theorem. In the end I always end up doing a bit of analysis on the problem, i.e. examining the vector field and surface before making a choice.
answered Jul 12 '14 at 17:51
ClassicStyleClassicStyle
1,0272716
add a comment |
It pretty much just depends on the problem! I like to stick with line integrals in the plane, however its not always best especially when the area is expressed easily as double integral. Same reasoning applies to Stoke's theorem and the Divergence theorem. However, I almost always prefer to work with volume integrals over surface integrals with respect to the divergence theorem. In the end I always end up doing a bit of analysis on the problem, i.e. examining the vector field and surface before making a choice.
answered Jul 12 '14 at 17:51
ClassicStyleClassicStyle
1,0272716
It pretty much just depends on the problem! I like to stick with line integrals in the plane, however its not always best especially when the area is expressed easily as double integral. Same reasoning applies to Stoke's theorem and the Divergence theorem. However, I almost always prefer to work with volume integrals over surface integrals with respect to the divergence theorem. In the end I always end up doing a bit of analysis on the problem, i.e. examining the vector field and surface before making a choice.
answered Jul 12 '14 at 17:51
ClassicStyleClassicStyle
1,0272716
answered Jul 12 '14 at 17:51
ClassicStyleClassicStyle
1,0272716
answered Jul 12 '14 at 17:51
ClassicStyleClassicStyle
1,0272716
answered Jul 12 '14 at 17:51
ClassicStyleClassicStyle
1,0272716
1,0272716
add a comment |
add a comment |
When you are talking about things like Green's theorem, Stokes' Theorem, etc., you are talking about a flow of matter from a bounded area or volume across a curve or surface represented by a membrane.
There are two ways to measure this "flow." One is to measure the changes in matter within each unit of volume or area and integrate them. The other is to measure the amount of "flow" across the boundary.
Because it is one order of magnitude lower, measuring and integrating "flow" across the curve, boundary, surface or membrane is usually easier than measuring and integrating flow from each area or volume, all other things being equal.
The "all other things being equal" fails to hold when there are "singularities," or leaks, in the area or surface, often involving the origin (the zero vector), or some point that maps to the origin. That's because matter is not "conserved" (within the relevant region), so measuring flow across boundaries doesn't work. In these cases, the higher order integral works better as a measure of flow, even if it is the more difficult computation.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 21:11
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
add a comment |
When you are talking about things like Green's theorem, Stokes' Theorem, etc., you are talking about a flow of matter from a bounded area or volume across a curve or surface represented by a membrane.
There are two ways to measure this "flow." One is to measure the changes in matter within each unit of volume or area and integrate them. The other is to measure the amount of "flow" across the boundary.
Because it is one order of magnitude lower, measuring and integrating "flow" across the curve, boundary, surface or membrane is usually easier than measuring and integrating flow from each area or volume, all other things being equal.
The "all other things being equal" fails to hold when there are "singularities," or leaks, in the area or surface, often involving the origin (the zero vector), or some point that maps to the origin. That's because matter is not "conserved" (within the relevant region), so measuring flow across boundaries doesn't work. In these cases, the higher order integral works better as a measure of flow, even if it is the more difficult computation.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 21:11
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
add a comment |
When you are talking about things like Green's theorem, Stokes' Theorem, etc., you are talking about a flow of matter from a bounded area or volume across a curve or surface represented by a membrane.
There are two ways to measure this "flow." One is to measure the changes in matter within each unit of volume or area and integrate them. The other is to measure the amount of "flow" across the boundary.
Because it is one order of magnitude lower, measuring and integrating "flow" across the curve, boundary, surface or membrane is usually easier than measuring and integrating flow from each area or volume, all other things being equal.
The "all other things being equal" fails to hold when there are "singularities," or leaks, in the area or surface, often involving the origin (the zero vector), or some point that maps to the origin. That's because matter is not "conserved" (within the relevant region), so measuring flow across boundaries doesn't work. In these cases, the higher order integral works better as a measure of flow, even if it is the more difficult computation.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 21:11
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
When you are talking about things like Green's theorem, Stokes' Theorem, etc., you are talking about a flow of matter from a bounded area or volume across a curve or surface represented by a membrane.
There are two ways to measure this "flow." One is to measure the changes in matter within each unit of volume or area and integrate them. The other is to measure the amount of "flow" across the boundary.
Because it is one order of magnitude lower, measuring and integrating "flow" across the curve, boundary, surface or membrane is usually easier than measuring and integrating flow from each area or volume, all other things being equal.
The "all other things being equal" fails to hold when there are "singularities," or leaks, in the area or surface, often involving the origin (the zero vector), or some point that maps to the origin. That's because matter is not "conserved" (within the relevant region), so measuring flow across boundaries doesn't work. In these cases, the higher order integral works better as a measure of flow, even if it is the more difficult computation.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 21:11
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
answered Dec 4 '18 at 21:11
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
answered Dec 4 '18 at 21:11
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
answered Dec 4 '18 at 21:11
Tom AuTom Au
1,2651333
1,2651333
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f865271%2fchoosing-which-technique-to-use-to-solve-multiple-integrals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
