Intutition behind triple integrals between two surfaces











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I am attempting to learn multivariable calculus on my own. A problem in my book asks me to evaluate
$$
iiint_mathcal{W} xz , mathrm{d}V
$$

where $mathcal{W}$ is the domain bounded by the cylinder $displaystyle frac{x^2}{4} + frac{y^2}{9} = 1$ and the sphere $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 16$ in the first octant ($x, y, z geq 0$).



The answer is $displaystyle frac{126}{5}$.



However, I cannot obtain this number nor can I understand the logic behind evaluating such an integral. If suppose, I take the $z$ variable, I can see that it can vary from $z = 0$ to $z = displaystyle sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}$. That reduces the integral to
$$
frac{1}{2}int_{lowX}^{highX} int_{lowY}^{highY} x(16 - x^2 - y^2) ,mathrm{d}y,mathrm{d}x
$$



My first question is what is this quantity, physically?



Next, as I look down from the $z$ axis --which I have eliminated, I see two curves on the $xy$ plane --an ellipse $displaystyle frac{x^2}{4} + frac{y^2}{9} = 1$ and a circle $x^2 + y^2 = 16$. So, if I vary $y$ from $0$ to $4$, $x$ goes from $displaystyle 2sqrt{1-y^2/9}$ to $sqrt{16-y^2}$.



Hence, my next question is what is so special about $z=0$? Why would I look at the curves on that plane? Why not the plane $z=1$? Is it because this gives me the maximal domain on $x$ and $y$ --a way of saying telling me the extent to which the variables vary? Or am I wrong to reason along these lines?



P.S.:- I better be wrong, because along these lines I do not get $126/5$. I get $3592/81$.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user1player1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • If you want proper understanding with intuition of setting of such limits,refer Thomas calculus..it is given beutifully there..(book is available online)
    – Believer
    Dec 1 at 7:36










  • Thanks. I have that book too. But it does not explain very well (in my opinion) the point I am confused about.
    – user1player1
    2 days ago















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I am attempting to learn multivariable calculus on my own. A problem in my book asks me to evaluate
$$
iiint_mathcal{W} xz , mathrm{d}V
$$

where $mathcal{W}$ is the domain bounded by the cylinder $displaystyle frac{x^2}{4} + frac{y^2}{9} = 1$ and the sphere $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 16$ in the first octant ($x, y, z geq 0$).



The answer is $displaystyle frac{126}{5}$.



However, I cannot obtain this number nor can I understand the logic behind evaluating such an integral. If suppose, I take the $z$ variable, I can see that it can vary from $z = 0$ to $z = displaystyle sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}$. That reduces the integral to
$$
frac{1}{2}int_{lowX}^{highX} int_{lowY}^{highY} x(16 - x^2 - y^2) ,mathrm{d}y,mathrm{d}x
$$



My first question is what is this quantity, physically?



Next, as I look down from the $z$ axis --which I have eliminated, I see two curves on the $xy$ plane --an ellipse $displaystyle frac{x^2}{4} + frac{y^2}{9} = 1$ and a circle $x^2 + y^2 = 16$. So, if I vary $y$ from $0$ to $4$, $x$ goes from $displaystyle 2sqrt{1-y^2/9}$ to $sqrt{16-y^2}$.



Hence, my next question is what is so special about $z=0$? Why would I look at the curves on that plane? Why not the plane $z=1$? Is it because this gives me the maximal domain on $x$ and $y$ --a way of saying telling me the extent to which the variables vary? Or am I wrong to reason along these lines?



P.S.:- I better be wrong, because along these lines I do not get $126/5$. I get $3592/81$.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user1player1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • If you want proper understanding with intuition of setting of such limits,refer Thomas calculus..it is given beutifully there..(book is available online)
    – Believer
    Dec 1 at 7:36










  • Thanks. I have that book too. But it does not explain very well (in my opinion) the point I am confused about.
    – user1player1
    2 days ago













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I am attempting to learn multivariable calculus on my own. A problem in my book asks me to evaluate
$$
iiint_mathcal{W} xz , mathrm{d}V
$$

where $mathcal{W}$ is the domain bounded by the cylinder $displaystyle frac{x^2}{4} + frac{y^2}{9} = 1$ and the sphere $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 16$ in the first octant ($x, y, z geq 0$).



The answer is $displaystyle frac{126}{5}$.



However, I cannot obtain this number nor can I understand the logic behind evaluating such an integral. If suppose, I take the $z$ variable, I can see that it can vary from $z = 0$ to $z = displaystyle sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}$. That reduces the integral to
$$
frac{1}{2}int_{lowX}^{highX} int_{lowY}^{highY} x(16 - x^2 - y^2) ,mathrm{d}y,mathrm{d}x
$$



My first question is what is this quantity, physically?



Next, as I look down from the $z$ axis --which I have eliminated, I see two curves on the $xy$ plane --an ellipse $displaystyle frac{x^2}{4} + frac{y^2}{9} = 1$ and a circle $x^2 + y^2 = 16$. So, if I vary $y$ from $0$ to $4$, $x$ goes from $displaystyle 2sqrt{1-y^2/9}$ to $sqrt{16-y^2}$.



Hence, my next question is what is so special about $z=0$? Why would I look at the curves on that plane? Why not the plane $z=1$? Is it because this gives me the maximal domain on $x$ and $y$ --a way of saying telling me the extent to which the variables vary? Or am I wrong to reason along these lines?



P.S.:- I better be wrong, because along these lines I do not get $126/5$. I get $3592/81$.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user1player1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I am attempting to learn multivariable calculus on my own. A problem in my book asks me to evaluate
$$
iiint_mathcal{W} xz , mathrm{d}V
$$

where $mathcal{W}$ is the domain bounded by the cylinder $displaystyle frac{x^2}{4} + frac{y^2}{9} = 1$ and the sphere $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 16$ in the first octant ($x, y, z geq 0$).



The answer is $displaystyle frac{126}{5}$.



However, I cannot obtain this number nor can I understand the logic behind evaluating such an integral. If suppose, I take the $z$ variable, I can see that it can vary from $z = 0$ to $z = displaystyle sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}$. That reduces the integral to
$$
frac{1}{2}int_{lowX}^{highX} int_{lowY}^{highY} x(16 - x^2 - y^2) ,mathrm{d}y,mathrm{d}x
$$



My first question is what is this quantity, physically?



Next, as I look down from the $z$ axis --which I have eliminated, I see two curves on the $xy$ plane --an ellipse $displaystyle frac{x^2}{4} + frac{y^2}{9} = 1$ and a circle $x^2 + y^2 = 16$. So, if I vary $y$ from $0$ to $4$, $x$ goes from $displaystyle 2sqrt{1-y^2/9}$ to $sqrt{16-y^2}$.



Hence, my next question is what is so special about $z=0$? Why would I look at the curves on that plane? Why not the plane $z=1$? Is it because this gives me the maximal domain on $x$ and $y$ --a way of saying telling me the extent to which the variables vary? Or am I wrong to reason along these lines?



P.S.:- I better be wrong, because along these lines I do not get $126/5$. I get $3592/81$.







integration multivariable-calculus multiple-integral






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user1player1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user1player1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago





















New contributor




user1player1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Dec 1 at 4:31









user1player1

162




162




New contributor




user1player1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user1player1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user1player1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • If you want proper understanding with intuition of setting of such limits,refer Thomas calculus..it is given beutifully there..(book is available online)
    – Believer
    Dec 1 at 7:36










  • Thanks. I have that book too. But it does not explain very well (in my opinion) the point I am confused about.
    – user1player1
    2 days ago


















  • If you want proper understanding with intuition of setting of such limits,refer Thomas calculus..it is given beutifully there..(book is available online)
    – Believer
    Dec 1 at 7:36










  • Thanks. I have that book too. But it does not explain very well (in my opinion) the point I am confused about.
    – user1player1
    2 days ago
















If you want proper understanding with intuition of setting of such limits,refer Thomas calculus..it is given beutifully there..(book is available online)
– Believer
Dec 1 at 7:36




If you want proper understanding with intuition of setting of such limits,refer Thomas calculus..it is given beutifully there..(book is available online)
– Believer
Dec 1 at 7:36












Thanks. I have that book too. But it does not explain very well (in my opinion) the point I am confused about.
– user1player1
2 days ago




Thanks. I have that book too. But it does not explain very well (in my opinion) the point I am confused about.
– user1player1
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













We are given this (a priori infinitely long) vertical cylinder whose base is an elliptical disc $E$ in the $(x,y)$-plane with semi-axes $2$ and $3$. In addition we are given a sphere of radius $4$. Note that $E$ is completely inside this sphere, but the sphere cuts off the cylinder, making round top and bottom surfaces of the resulting cylindrical body. Actually we don't want the full cylindrical body, but only the part $B$ of it in the first octant. We are then told to compute the integral
$$int_B x z>{rm d}V=int_Eleft( int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} x z>dzright){rm d}(x,y) .tag{1}$$
On the RHS at each point $(x,y)in E$ a vertical stalk has been erected, with lower end at $z=0$ and upper end at $z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}$ on the sphere. The body $B$ is the union of these stalks. Now
$$int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} z>dz={z^2over2}biggr|_{z=0}^{z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}}={1over2}(16-x^2-y^2) .tag{2}$$
At this point the spherical shaped top boundary of $B$ is completely taken care of. We now
plug $(2)$ into the RHS of $(1)$, and obtain
$$eqalign{int_B x z>{rm d}V&=int_E {xover2} (16-x^2-y^2)>{rm d}(x,y)cr &=int_0^3left(int_0^{{2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}}{xover2}(16-x^2-y^2)dxright)dy .cr}$$
Note that the $int_E$ integral is completely in the $(x,y)$-plane. In order to compute it "by reduction" we have drawn at each level $yin[0,3]$ a horizontal beam beginning at $x=0$ and ending at $x={2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}$ on the right half of the elliptical boundary. The reason for this choice of integration order is that we wanted to make good use of the factor $x$ in the integral. In this way no square roots will appear in the calculation.



Calculate the inner integral (with respect to $x$, while $y$ is held constant). You obtain a polynomial in $y$, which you then have to integrate from $0$ to $3$. The result is indeed ${126over5}$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks @christian-blatter but shouldn't the second integration run from $2/3 sqrt{9-y^2}$ to the boundary of sphere? As you have set it up, we get the summation over the region within the ellipse but I feel we have to get the summation over the region between the ellipse and the sphere. Or did I get something wrong?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago


















up vote
0
down vote













Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:



enter image description here



The integral is:



$$intlimits_{x=-2}^2 intlimits_{y=-3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}}^{+3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}} intlimits_{z = -sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}}^{+sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}} x z dx dy dz$$



Of course the value of this integral is $0$ because for any position with $+x$ there is a corresponding point with $-x$, cancelling each other out.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I notice a couple of things --first, you did not place the individual infinitesimals ($mathrm{d}x$, $mathrm{d}y$, and $mathrm{d}z$) in strict order --why is my book so fastidious about it? Is it a difference between formal and informal styles? Second, why can we drop the $z$ dependence like that? What is the reason the $y$ limits look like an ellipse --for one --right where the sphere and the ellipse intersect we get a very different curve. Also, not important (as I am not looking for the solution) but the problem is for the first octant.
    – user1player1
    2 days ago












  • The sphere and the curve intersect at $displaystyle frac{5}{9}y^2 + z^2 = 12$
    – user1player1
    2 days ago










  • @user1player1: The order of integration is typically 1) any integral in which the limits depend solely on a single variable (here, $x$); 2) any integral in which the limits depend solely upon the variable and previously integrated variables (here, $y$ and the previously integrated $x$); 3) etc.... It is not essential to perform these in this order but it is convenient and conventional.
    – David G. Stork
    2 days ago












  • Thanks. And could you please also clarify my second point?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago











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',
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
});


}
});






user1player1 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3020989%2fintutition-behind-triple-integrals-between-two-surfaces%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








up vote
0
down vote













We are given this (a priori infinitely long) vertical cylinder whose base is an elliptical disc $E$ in the $(x,y)$-plane with semi-axes $2$ and $3$. In addition we are given a sphere of radius $4$. Note that $E$ is completely inside this sphere, but the sphere cuts off the cylinder, making round top and bottom surfaces of the resulting cylindrical body. Actually we don't want the full cylindrical body, but only the part $B$ of it in the first octant. We are then told to compute the integral
$$int_B x z>{rm d}V=int_Eleft( int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} x z>dzright){rm d}(x,y) .tag{1}$$
On the RHS at each point $(x,y)in E$ a vertical stalk has been erected, with lower end at $z=0$ and upper end at $z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}$ on the sphere. The body $B$ is the union of these stalks. Now
$$int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} z>dz={z^2over2}biggr|_{z=0}^{z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}}={1over2}(16-x^2-y^2) .tag{2}$$
At this point the spherical shaped top boundary of $B$ is completely taken care of. We now
plug $(2)$ into the RHS of $(1)$, and obtain
$$eqalign{int_B x z>{rm d}V&=int_E {xover2} (16-x^2-y^2)>{rm d}(x,y)cr &=int_0^3left(int_0^{{2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}}{xover2}(16-x^2-y^2)dxright)dy .cr}$$
Note that the $int_E$ integral is completely in the $(x,y)$-plane. In order to compute it "by reduction" we have drawn at each level $yin[0,3]$ a horizontal beam beginning at $x=0$ and ending at $x={2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}$ on the right half of the elliptical boundary. The reason for this choice of integration order is that we wanted to make good use of the factor $x$ in the integral. In this way no square roots will appear in the calculation.



Calculate the inner integral (with respect to $x$, while $y$ is held constant). You obtain a polynomial in $y$, which you then have to integrate from $0$ to $3$. The result is indeed ${126over5}$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks @christian-blatter but shouldn't the second integration run from $2/3 sqrt{9-y^2}$ to the boundary of sphere? As you have set it up, we get the summation over the region within the ellipse but I feel we have to get the summation over the region between the ellipse and the sphere. Or did I get something wrong?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago















up vote
0
down vote













We are given this (a priori infinitely long) vertical cylinder whose base is an elliptical disc $E$ in the $(x,y)$-plane with semi-axes $2$ and $3$. In addition we are given a sphere of radius $4$. Note that $E$ is completely inside this sphere, but the sphere cuts off the cylinder, making round top and bottom surfaces of the resulting cylindrical body. Actually we don't want the full cylindrical body, but only the part $B$ of it in the first octant. We are then told to compute the integral
$$int_B x z>{rm d}V=int_Eleft( int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} x z>dzright){rm d}(x,y) .tag{1}$$
On the RHS at each point $(x,y)in E$ a vertical stalk has been erected, with lower end at $z=0$ and upper end at $z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}$ on the sphere. The body $B$ is the union of these stalks. Now
$$int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} z>dz={z^2over2}biggr|_{z=0}^{z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}}={1over2}(16-x^2-y^2) .tag{2}$$
At this point the spherical shaped top boundary of $B$ is completely taken care of. We now
plug $(2)$ into the RHS of $(1)$, and obtain
$$eqalign{int_B x z>{rm d}V&=int_E {xover2} (16-x^2-y^2)>{rm d}(x,y)cr &=int_0^3left(int_0^{{2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}}{xover2}(16-x^2-y^2)dxright)dy .cr}$$
Note that the $int_E$ integral is completely in the $(x,y)$-plane. In order to compute it "by reduction" we have drawn at each level $yin[0,3]$ a horizontal beam beginning at $x=0$ and ending at $x={2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}$ on the right half of the elliptical boundary. The reason for this choice of integration order is that we wanted to make good use of the factor $x$ in the integral. In this way no square roots will appear in the calculation.



Calculate the inner integral (with respect to $x$, while $y$ is held constant). You obtain a polynomial in $y$, which you then have to integrate from $0$ to $3$. The result is indeed ${126over5}$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks @christian-blatter but shouldn't the second integration run from $2/3 sqrt{9-y^2}$ to the boundary of sphere? As you have set it up, we get the summation over the region within the ellipse but I feel we have to get the summation over the region between the ellipse and the sphere. Or did I get something wrong?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









We are given this (a priori infinitely long) vertical cylinder whose base is an elliptical disc $E$ in the $(x,y)$-plane with semi-axes $2$ and $3$. In addition we are given a sphere of radius $4$. Note that $E$ is completely inside this sphere, but the sphere cuts off the cylinder, making round top and bottom surfaces of the resulting cylindrical body. Actually we don't want the full cylindrical body, but only the part $B$ of it in the first octant. We are then told to compute the integral
$$int_B x z>{rm d}V=int_Eleft( int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} x z>dzright){rm d}(x,y) .tag{1}$$
On the RHS at each point $(x,y)in E$ a vertical stalk has been erected, with lower end at $z=0$ and upper end at $z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}$ on the sphere. The body $B$ is the union of these stalks. Now
$$int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} z>dz={z^2over2}biggr|_{z=0}^{z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}}={1over2}(16-x^2-y^2) .tag{2}$$
At this point the spherical shaped top boundary of $B$ is completely taken care of. We now
plug $(2)$ into the RHS of $(1)$, and obtain
$$eqalign{int_B x z>{rm d}V&=int_E {xover2} (16-x^2-y^2)>{rm d}(x,y)cr &=int_0^3left(int_0^{{2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}}{xover2}(16-x^2-y^2)dxright)dy .cr}$$
Note that the $int_E$ integral is completely in the $(x,y)$-plane. In order to compute it "by reduction" we have drawn at each level $yin[0,3]$ a horizontal beam beginning at $x=0$ and ending at $x={2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}$ on the right half of the elliptical boundary. The reason for this choice of integration order is that we wanted to make good use of the factor $x$ in the integral. In this way no square roots will appear in the calculation.



Calculate the inner integral (with respect to $x$, while $y$ is held constant). You obtain a polynomial in $y$, which you then have to integrate from $0$ to $3$. The result is indeed ${126over5}$.






share|cite|improve this answer














We are given this (a priori infinitely long) vertical cylinder whose base is an elliptical disc $E$ in the $(x,y)$-plane with semi-axes $2$ and $3$. In addition we are given a sphere of radius $4$. Note that $E$ is completely inside this sphere, but the sphere cuts off the cylinder, making round top and bottom surfaces of the resulting cylindrical body. Actually we don't want the full cylindrical body, but only the part $B$ of it in the first octant. We are then told to compute the integral
$$int_B x z>{rm d}V=int_Eleft( int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} x z>dzright){rm d}(x,y) .tag{1}$$
On the RHS at each point $(x,y)in E$ a vertical stalk has been erected, with lower end at $z=0$ and upper end at $z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}$ on the sphere. The body $B$ is the union of these stalks. Now
$$int_0^{sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}} z>dz={z^2over2}biggr|_{z=0}^{z=sqrt{16-x^2-y^2}}={1over2}(16-x^2-y^2) .tag{2}$$
At this point the spherical shaped top boundary of $B$ is completely taken care of. We now
plug $(2)$ into the RHS of $(1)$, and obtain
$$eqalign{int_B x z>{rm d}V&=int_E {xover2} (16-x^2-y^2)>{rm d}(x,y)cr &=int_0^3left(int_0^{{2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}}{xover2}(16-x^2-y^2)dxright)dy .cr}$$
Note that the $int_E$ integral is completely in the $(x,y)$-plane. In order to compute it "by reduction" we have drawn at each level $yin[0,3]$ a horizontal beam beginning at $x=0$ and ending at $x={2over3}sqrt{9-y^2}$ on the right half of the elliptical boundary. The reason for this choice of integration order is that we wanted to make good use of the factor $x$ in the integral. In this way no square roots will appear in the calculation.



Calculate the inner integral (with respect to $x$, while $y$ is held constant). You obtain a polynomial in $y$, which you then have to integrate from $0$ to $3$. The result is indeed ${126over5}$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









Christian Blatter

171k7111325




171k7111325












  • Thanks @christian-blatter but shouldn't the second integration run from $2/3 sqrt{9-y^2}$ to the boundary of sphere? As you have set it up, we get the summation over the region within the ellipse but I feel we have to get the summation over the region between the ellipse and the sphere. Or did I get something wrong?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago


















  • Thanks @christian-blatter but shouldn't the second integration run from $2/3 sqrt{9-y^2}$ to the boundary of sphere? As you have set it up, we get the summation over the region within the ellipse but I feel we have to get the summation over the region between the ellipse and the sphere. Or did I get something wrong?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago
















Thanks @christian-blatter but shouldn't the second integration run from $2/3 sqrt{9-y^2}$ to the boundary of sphere? As you have set it up, we get the summation over the region within the ellipse but I feel we have to get the summation over the region between the ellipse and the sphere. Or did I get something wrong?
– user1player1
2 days ago




Thanks @christian-blatter but shouldn't the second integration run from $2/3 sqrt{9-y^2}$ to the boundary of sphere? As you have set it up, we get the summation over the region within the ellipse but I feel we have to get the summation over the region between the ellipse and the sphere. Or did I get something wrong?
– user1player1
2 days ago










up vote
0
down vote













Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:



enter image description here



The integral is:



$$intlimits_{x=-2}^2 intlimits_{y=-3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}}^{+3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}} intlimits_{z = -sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}}^{+sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}} x z dx dy dz$$



Of course the value of this integral is $0$ because for any position with $+x$ there is a corresponding point with $-x$, cancelling each other out.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I notice a couple of things --first, you did not place the individual infinitesimals ($mathrm{d}x$, $mathrm{d}y$, and $mathrm{d}z$) in strict order --why is my book so fastidious about it? Is it a difference between formal and informal styles? Second, why can we drop the $z$ dependence like that? What is the reason the $y$ limits look like an ellipse --for one --right where the sphere and the ellipse intersect we get a very different curve. Also, not important (as I am not looking for the solution) but the problem is for the first octant.
    – user1player1
    2 days ago












  • The sphere and the curve intersect at $displaystyle frac{5}{9}y^2 + z^2 = 12$
    – user1player1
    2 days ago










  • @user1player1: The order of integration is typically 1) any integral in which the limits depend solely on a single variable (here, $x$); 2) any integral in which the limits depend solely upon the variable and previously integrated variables (here, $y$ and the previously integrated $x$); 3) etc.... It is not essential to perform these in this order but it is convenient and conventional.
    – David G. Stork
    2 days ago












  • Thanks. And could you please also clarify my second point?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago















up vote
0
down vote













Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:



enter image description here



The integral is:



$$intlimits_{x=-2}^2 intlimits_{y=-3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}}^{+3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}} intlimits_{z = -sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}}^{+sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}} x z dx dy dz$$



Of course the value of this integral is $0$ because for any position with $+x$ there is a corresponding point with $-x$, cancelling each other out.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I notice a couple of things --first, you did not place the individual infinitesimals ($mathrm{d}x$, $mathrm{d}y$, and $mathrm{d}z$) in strict order --why is my book so fastidious about it? Is it a difference between formal and informal styles? Second, why can we drop the $z$ dependence like that? What is the reason the $y$ limits look like an ellipse --for one --right where the sphere and the ellipse intersect we get a very different curve. Also, not important (as I am not looking for the solution) but the problem is for the first octant.
    – user1player1
    2 days ago












  • The sphere and the curve intersect at $displaystyle frac{5}{9}y^2 + z^2 = 12$
    – user1player1
    2 days ago










  • @user1player1: The order of integration is typically 1) any integral in which the limits depend solely on a single variable (here, $x$); 2) any integral in which the limits depend solely upon the variable and previously integrated variables (here, $y$ and the previously integrated $x$); 3) etc.... It is not essential to perform these in this order but it is convenient and conventional.
    – David G. Stork
    2 days ago












  • Thanks. And could you please also clarify my second point?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:



enter image description here



The integral is:



$$intlimits_{x=-2}^2 intlimits_{y=-3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}}^{+3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}} intlimits_{z = -sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}}^{+sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}} x z dx dy dz$$



Of course the value of this integral is $0$ because for any position with $+x$ there is a corresponding point with $-x$, cancelling each other out.






share|cite|improve this answer














Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:



enter image description here



The integral is:



$$intlimits_{x=-2}^2 intlimits_{y=-3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}}^{+3sqrt{1 - x^2/4}} intlimits_{z = -sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}}^{+sqrt{16 - x^2 - y^2}} x z dx dy dz$$



Of course the value of this integral is $0$ because for any position with $+x$ there is a corresponding point with $-x$, cancelling each other out.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered Dec 1 at 7:26









David G. Stork

9,30321232




9,30321232












  • I notice a couple of things --first, you did not place the individual infinitesimals ($mathrm{d}x$, $mathrm{d}y$, and $mathrm{d}z$) in strict order --why is my book so fastidious about it? Is it a difference between formal and informal styles? Second, why can we drop the $z$ dependence like that? What is the reason the $y$ limits look like an ellipse --for one --right where the sphere and the ellipse intersect we get a very different curve. Also, not important (as I am not looking for the solution) but the problem is for the first octant.
    – user1player1
    2 days ago












  • The sphere and the curve intersect at $displaystyle frac{5}{9}y^2 + z^2 = 12$
    – user1player1
    2 days ago










  • @user1player1: The order of integration is typically 1) any integral in which the limits depend solely on a single variable (here, $x$); 2) any integral in which the limits depend solely upon the variable and previously integrated variables (here, $y$ and the previously integrated $x$); 3) etc.... It is not essential to perform these in this order but it is convenient and conventional.
    – David G. Stork
    2 days ago












  • Thanks. And could you please also clarify my second point?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago


















  • I notice a couple of things --first, you did not place the individual infinitesimals ($mathrm{d}x$, $mathrm{d}y$, and $mathrm{d}z$) in strict order --why is my book so fastidious about it? Is it a difference between formal and informal styles? Second, why can we drop the $z$ dependence like that? What is the reason the $y$ limits look like an ellipse --for one --right where the sphere and the ellipse intersect we get a very different curve. Also, not important (as I am not looking for the solution) but the problem is for the first octant.
    – user1player1
    2 days ago












  • The sphere and the curve intersect at $displaystyle frac{5}{9}y^2 + z^2 = 12$
    – user1player1
    2 days ago










  • @user1player1: The order of integration is typically 1) any integral in which the limits depend solely on a single variable (here, $x$); 2) any integral in which the limits depend solely upon the variable and previously integrated variables (here, $y$ and the previously integrated $x$); 3) etc.... It is not essential to perform these in this order but it is convenient and conventional.
    – David G. Stork
    2 days ago












  • Thanks. And could you please also clarify my second point?
    – user1player1
    2 days ago
















I notice a couple of things --first, you did not place the individual infinitesimals ($mathrm{d}x$, $mathrm{d}y$, and $mathrm{d}z$) in strict order --why is my book so fastidious about it? Is it a difference between formal and informal styles? Second, why can we drop the $z$ dependence like that? What is the reason the $y$ limits look like an ellipse --for one --right where the sphere and the ellipse intersect we get a very different curve. Also, not important (as I am not looking for the solution) but the problem is for the first octant.
– user1player1
2 days ago






I notice a couple of things --first, you did not place the individual infinitesimals ($mathrm{d}x$, $mathrm{d}y$, and $mathrm{d}z$) in strict order --why is my book so fastidious about it? Is it a difference between formal and informal styles? Second, why can we drop the $z$ dependence like that? What is the reason the $y$ limits look like an ellipse --for one --right where the sphere and the ellipse intersect we get a very different curve. Also, not important (as I am not looking for the solution) but the problem is for the first octant.
– user1player1
2 days ago














The sphere and the curve intersect at $displaystyle frac{5}{9}y^2 + z^2 = 12$
– user1player1
2 days ago




The sphere and the curve intersect at $displaystyle frac{5}{9}y^2 + z^2 = 12$
– user1player1
2 days ago












@user1player1: The order of integration is typically 1) any integral in which the limits depend solely on a single variable (here, $x$); 2) any integral in which the limits depend solely upon the variable and previously integrated variables (here, $y$ and the previously integrated $x$); 3) etc.... It is not essential to perform these in this order but it is convenient and conventional.
– David G. Stork
2 days ago






@user1player1: The order of integration is typically 1) any integral in which the limits depend solely on a single variable (here, $x$); 2) any integral in which the limits depend solely upon the variable and previously integrated variables (here, $y$ and the previously integrated $x$); 3) etc.... It is not essential to perform these in this order but it is convenient and conventional.
– David G. Stork
2 days ago














Thanks. And could you please also clarify my second point?
– user1player1
2 days ago




Thanks. And could you please also clarify my second point?
– user1player1
2 days ago










user1player1 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















user1player1 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













user1player1 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












user1player1 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3020989%2fintutition-behind-triple-integrals-between-two-surfaces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Cabo Verde

Gyllenstierna