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 $3592/81$.
integration multivariable-calculus multiple-integral
New contributor
add a comment |
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 $3592/81$.
integration multivariable-calculus multiple-integral
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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 $3592/81$.
integration multivariable-calculus multiple-integral
New contributor
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
integration multivariable-calculus multiple-integral
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
New contributor
asked Dec 1 at 4:31
user1player1
162
162
New contributor
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 ${126over5}$.
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
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:
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.
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
add a comment |
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 ${126over5}$.
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
add a comment |
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 ${126over5}$.
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
add a comment |
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 ${126over5}$.
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 ${126over5}$.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:
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.
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
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:
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.
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
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:
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.
Sometimes a figure is worth 1000 words:
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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%2f3020989%2fintutition-behind-triple-integrals-between-two-surfaces%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
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