Interpretation of integral as area?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the interpretation of definite integrals, particularly how they relate to the concept of area under a curve and the implications of changing the limits of integration. Participants explore various perspectives on the mathematical properties of integrals, including orientation and the effects of reversing bounds.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the definite integral can be viewed as the area between the function and y=0, but struggles to reconcile this with the property that reversing the limits of integration changes the sign of the integral.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of oriented regions, explaining that the direction of integration determines the orientation of the boundary, which affects the sign of the area calculated.
  • A different viewpoint presents a mathematical identity involving the addition of integrals, suggesting that reversing the limits leads to a zero result when evaluated at the same bounds.
  • One participant proposes that flipping the order of limits changes the width of the slices from positive to negative, drawing an analogy to integrating negative functions.
  • Another participant suggests treating area slices as vectors, indicating that reversing the direction of the width alters the direction of the area vector.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of how to conceptualize the effects of reversing integration limits, with no consensus reached on a single explanation. Multiple competing views remain regarding the relationship between orientation, area, and the properties of integrals.

Contextual Notes

Some participants' arguments rely on specific definitions of orientation and area, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion also highlights the complexity of integrating functions that may take on negative values and how that affects the interpretation of area.

Zorodius
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
I know the definite integral of a function can be thought of as the area between the function and y=0 and between the lower and upper bounds of integration, so long as the function is positive in that region.

However, I also know that:

[tex]\int_{a}^{b} f(x) ~dx = -\int_{b}^{a} f(x) ~dx[/tex]

And I find it hard to reconcile these two things. It would be nice to think of the integral as a process where you're adding up a whole bunch of little slices between the function and y=0 from the lower bound to the upper bound, but under this rationalization, you'd be adding up exactly the same thing whether you add them from left to right or right to left. The "area under the curve" would remain exactly the same even if you mirrored the whole thing horizontally.

How do you think of this? Do you have a way of looking at it that neatly accounts for the fact that inverting the bounds causes the sign to change?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The trick is to use the idea of an oriented region. If you take the boundary of a region, there are two ways you can go around it, clockwise, and counterclockwise. If we are going around the boundary counterclockwise, we say the region has a positive orientation. Otherwise, it has a negative orientation.

The direction of integration allows us to determine the orientation of the boundary. For example, if we take the unit square given by:

0 <= x <= 1 and 0 <= y <= 1.

We can find the area via

[tex] \int_0^1 1 dx[/tex]

In this integral, we're going from 0 to 1, so we're going to the right along the x-axis. If we continue around the square, we go around it counterclockwise, so it is positively oriented, and we get the positive area, +1.

If, instead, we do

[tex] \int_1^0 1 dx[/tex]

We're going left along the x-axis, thus go around the square clockwise, getting a negative area, -1.
 
Start with:
[tex] \int_{a}^{b} f(x) ~dx\ +<br /> \ \int_{b}^{c} f(x) ~dx\ =<br /> \ \int_{a}^{c} f(x) ~dx [/tex]​
If you then set c = a you have
[tex] \int_{a}^{b} f(x) ~dx\ +<br /> \ \int_{b}^{a} f(x) ~dx\ =<br /> \ \int_{a}^{a} f(x) ~dx\ =\ 0[/tex]​
which implies your original equation.
 
Last edited:
Well, when you flip the order of the limits then you are basically taking all the little slices you are adding up and switching them from having a positive width to a negative width. Sort of analogous to how when you integrate over a negative function, you are "flipping" the slices over so that they have negative height instead of positive height.
 
Treat each area slice as a vector; the cross product of the functional height and the width of the slice. When you reverse the direction of the width, you switch the direction of the area vector.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K