I am currently reading Young & Freedmans textbook on physics as part of a university course, and I've noticed that they repeatedly represent surface integrals (which are double integrals) as single integrals.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

For instance, they symbolically represent the magnetic flux through a surface as:

[tex]\int \vec{\textbf{B}} \cdot d\vec{\textbf{A}}[/tex]

However, I suspected that this should in fact be a double integral (since the domain of integration is a surface), and indeed on Wikipedia they write the magnetic flux through a surface as:

[tex]\iint\vec{\textbf{B}} \cdot d\vec{\textbf{A}}[/tex]

My question is, which representation is the right and why? Are they both right and we are supposed to implicitly understand that the single integral should be evaluated as a double integral since we have a surface area element?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# I How come surface integrals are single integrals in my book?

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - surface integrals single | Date |
---|---|

A Surface Integral of a Scalar Field with Time Dependency | Feb 15, 2017 |

I Surface integral of nndS | Feb 14, 2017 |

I Surface of revolution of a donuts | Nov 15, 2016 |

I Contour integration over Riemann surface | Jul 23, 2016 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**