How Do I Integrate cos(x/y) with Respect to y in a Double Integral?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of the function cos(x/y) with respect to y in the context of a double integral. Participants explore various approaches to evaluate the integral, including switching the order of integration and addressing potential challenges with the integral's form.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the double integral ∫∫ cos(x/y) dydx with specified limits and asks for guidance on integrating with respect to y.
  • Another participant claims that the integral ∫ cos(1/y) dy cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions, suggesting the use of Fubini's theorem to switch the order of integration.
  • Several participants note that switching the order of integration simplifies the problem, proposing that the integral can be rewritten as ∫∫ cos(x/y) dx dy, which may be easier to evaluate.
  • One participant corrects a LaTeX formatting error in a previous post and emphasizes the importance of clarity in notation, particularly for those new to integration.
  • Another participant shares a personal anecdote about teaching methods related to clarity in variable notation during integration, indicating a broader concern about student understanding.
  • There is a recognition that while clarity in notation is helpful, it may not be strictly necessary for experienced integrators, leading to a slight divergence from the original question.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of including variable limits in the notation of integrals. While some argue for clarity, others believe it is not essential. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to the original integral.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential confusion arising from variable notation and the complexity of integrating cos(x/y), but do not resolve the mathematical challenges presented by the integral itself.

hivesaeed4
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Suppose we have:
∫∫ cos(x/y) dydx

where the first integral is of x and is 0→1, while the second is of y and is x→1. Could someone tell me how to get the first integration (i.e. of cos(x/y) w.r.t. y) done??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you wish to calculate the integral

[tex]\int \cos(1/y)dy[/tex]

then it can't be done. This integral can not be calculated using elementary functions.

However, you could use Fubini to switch the two integrals and integrate to x first. Maybe that gives something nice.
 
[tex]\int_{x= 0}^1\int_{y=x}^1 cos(x/y) dy dx[/tex]
is the same as
[tex]\int_{y=0}^1\int_{x= 0}^y cos(x/y) dx dy[/tex]
and the second is much easier to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
[tex]\int_{x= 0}^1\int_{y=x}^1 cos(x/y) dy dx[/tex]
is the same as
[tex]\int_{y=0}^1\int_{x= 0}^y cos(x/y} dx dy[/tex]
and the second is much easier to do.

Correction:

[tex]\int_{0}^1\int_{0}^y \cos\left(\dfrac xy\right)\ \mathrm{d}x\ \mathrm{d}y[/tex]

Sure, some of what I just did was a matter of style, but you did run into an error parsing your LaTeX, using cos(x/y} instead of cos(x/y). I suggest you preview all your posts, especially those with LaTeX, before submitting them. Also, use \cos, not cos. (We don't really need those x=0 and y=0 because we already know what we're integrating with respect to from those d's.)
 
Whovian said:
(We don't really need those x=0 and y=0 because we already know what we're integrating with respect to from those d's.)

This form avoids confusion, especially with people new to integration. I remember my Calc II professor saying once that he changed his teaching method to including the variables of integration because students constantly mixed up variables on exams of his. I'm sure others have had the same problem. Sure, it's obvious that you integrate from the inside out so you don't really need the variables, but it's just like subtracting an integer from two sides of an equation instead of doing the subtraction in your head from step to step or using u-substitution when only constants are involved, etc.
 
Very true, and they do help to avoid confusion a lot. My point was we don't need those. But we're starting to get a bit off the original question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K