Difficulty finding integral answer to set function

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around computing the integral Q(A) for a specific subset C of a square defined by the vertices (0,0) and (1,1). The user initially calculated the integral as 1/2 but suspected errors in their limits of integration. They proposed new limits, yielding an answer of 2/9, but expressed uncertainty about the correctness of this result. The conversation highlights confusion regarding the upper limit for x, particularly for values greater than 2/3, and the implications for the variable y. Clarification is sought on whether the conditions for y still hold in this range, indicating a need for further verification of the integral setup.
wown
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Note: as i was typing this post, i think i figured out the answer but i want to confirm.
Question:
let A denote the set of points that are interior to, or on the boundary of, a square with opposite verties at the points (0,0) and (1,1). let Q(A) = ∫∫dydx
if C, a subset of A, is the set {(x,y): 0 < x/2 ≤ y ≤ 3x/2 < 1}, compute Q(A)

Solution:
I kept getting 1/2 as the answer, but i think my limits of integration were wrong. is the following correct?

^{2/3}_{0}∫^{3x/2}_{x/2}∫dydx

this setup gives the answer as 2/9... unfortunately i do not have the correct answer which is why i needed to verify.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The question is not completely clear. For x > 2/3 is anything included?
This would involve: x/2 < y < 1.
 
Unfortunately, i typed the question verbatim and not sure how to respond to you.

note that the 2/3 upper limit on x was defined by me. I figured that y <1 (from y ≤ 3x/2 < 1). so therefor x cannot be more than 2/3, since y must also be less than 3x/2. for x> 2/3, y>1. e.g. when x=1, y=3/2.

does that make sense?
 
No. Your condition x/2≤y≤3x/2 for x > 2/3 restricts y to x/2≤y≤1, but does not remove it altogether.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top