Change of variable in multiple integrals

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the Change of Variables Theorem for multiple integrals as presented in Apostol's Mathematical Analysis. A specific concern is raised regarding the notation used by Apostol, particularly the use of "t" for variable vectors in different sets, which may suggest a typo. The poster seeks clarification on the transition from a specific equation involving Jacobians to another form, questioning the application of the multiplication theorem for Jacobians. Additionally, there is uncertainty about a potential typo in the integrand function presented in Apostol's work. The poster requests assistance and resources for further understanding of Jacobians.
Castilla
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Hello. Does someone has studied the Change of Variables Theorem for multiple integrals in Apostol's Mathematical Analysis? (First Edition:not Lebesgue but Riemann).

I hope that some of you has the same edition, because if not, it will be sort of dificult to make a legible copy of the equations. It is Theorem 10.30, pg 271.

1.- See pg. 272, after the first 2 paragraphs. ¿Why does Apostol uses "t" to denote a variable vector in set A as well as a variable vector in set B? Is it a typo in my edition?

2.- I have more or less managed to follow the proof up to its last part, in page 274. Here is my problem. In his equation (11), Apostol has a one-dimensional Riemann integral with this product as the integrand function:

F(theta(u)) (Jacobian of function theta in vector(u)) (11)

He says: now we make the one dimensional change of variable
u_n = phi_n (t) in the inner integral and replace the dummy variables u_1, ..., u_n-1 by t_1, ..., t_n-1 and (11) becomes:

(I only copy the integrand function)

F(g(t)) (Jacobian of theta in "t")(Jacobian of phi in "t") dt_n. (*)

Then he equals this integrand function with this one:

F(g(t)) (Jacobian of function g in "t"). (**)

Two questions here:

2.1. How does he goes from (11) to (*)? I know the multiplication theorem for Jacobians (T. 7.2, pg. 140 in the same book) but I can not see how this theorem would justify Apostol's step. It does not match.

2.2. Maybe there is a typo in (*) and what he meant was:

F(g(t)) (Jacobian of theta in "phi(t)")(Jacobian of phi in "t") ?

Please send some aid.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am attaching Apostol T. 10.30.
 

Attachments

Or at least you can suggest some website where I can learn completely about jacobians?
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K