How do we integrate with respect to (dx)^2 (not dx)?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AakashPandita
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dx Integrate
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of expressions involving differentials, specifically the notation and implications of integrating with respect to (dx)^2 versus dx^2. Participants explore the mathematical meaning and validity of these notations, as well as their applications in contexts such as integral equations and calculating moments of inertia.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant poses the integral ∫x(dx)^2 and questions the difference between dx^2 and (dx)^2.
  • Another participant notes that they have seen dx^2 but not (dx)^2, suggesting that (dx)^2 could be interpreted through wedge products.
  • Some participants argue that the integral is zero, indicating it contributes nothing to the overall sum, while others seek clarification on its origin.
  • There is a suggestion that (dx)^2 might be shorthand for a double integral, but this is contested by others who assert that using the same variable for multiple integrals is not permissible.
  • A participant recalls a book on integral equations that uses similar notation, but acknowledges that the notation may be incorrect.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of squaring differentials, with one participant questioning the meaning of (r+dr)^2 and suggesting that it should be interpreted as leading to zero when squared.
  • Another participant explains the derivation of the moment of inertia for a disk, using the notation (dx)^2 and discussing the implications of infinitesimals in this context.
  • There is a discussion about the area of a ring derived from the difference in areas of two circles, leading to further exploration of the notation and its implications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the notation and its mathematical validity. There is no consensus on the interpretation of (dx)^2 versus dx^2, and the discussion remains unresolved with various perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific texts and examples that utilize the notation in question, but there are concerns about the clarity and correctness of such notations. The discussion highlights the ambiguity and potential misinterpretations associated with integrating expressions involving squared differentials.

AakashPandita
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
∫x(dx)^2=?

and what is the difference between dx^2 and (dx)^2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where's this from? I've seen ##dx^2## but not ##(dx)^2##. The only way I can parse the latter is with wedge products
 
Last edited:
The integral is zero.
i.e. it has no contribution to the overall sum.

But let's be careful: where have you seen this come up?
 
Isn't that just short-hand notation for a double integral, i.e.,

\iint x dx dx
 
jackmell said:
Isn't that just short-hand notation for a double integral, i.e.,

\iint x dx dx

I don't think you are allowed to have the same variable for multiple integrals. A double integral is integrating with respect to the area element.
 
pwsnafu said:
I don't think you are allowed to have the same variable for multiple integrals. A double integral is integrating with respect to the area element.

Ok, but the reason I suggested this is because I recall in one of my books on integral equations, the author, when converting from IVP to Volterra Equations, use the syntax such as:

\int_0^x \int_0^x f(t) dt dt=\int_0^x (x-t) f(t)dt

however, to be fair, he never used the syntax (dt)^2 so if I am in error, my apologies.
 
I was trying to find the moment of inertia of a disk rotating at the axis through its center and perpendicular to it.

i got an integral for some function with (dx)^2 in it.
 
jackmell said:
Ok, but the reason I suggested this is because I recall in one of my books on integral equations, the author, when converting from IVP to Volterra Equations, use the syntax such as:

\int_0^x \int_0^x f(t) dt dt=\int_0^x (x-t) f(t)dt
I strongly suspect that you have misread
\int_0^x\int_0^x f(t)d\tau dt

however, to be fair, he never used the syntax (dt)^2 so if I am in error, my apologies.
Neither "dtdt" nor "(dx)^2" has any meaning.
 
HallsofIvy said:
I strongly suspect that you have misread
\int_0^x\int_0^x f(t)d\tau dt

With all due respect Hall, I have not. It's from "A First Course in Integral Equations" by Abdul-Majid Wazwaz. It's on p. 20 and includes also, the expression:

\int_0^x \int_0^x \int_0^x f(t)dt dt dt=1/2 \int_0^x (x-t)^2 f(t)dt
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Then it is just bad notation.
 
  • #11
jackmell said:
With all due respect Hall, I have not. It's from "A First Course in Integral Equations" by Abdul-Majid Wazwaz. It's on p. 20 and includes also, the expression:

\int_0^x \int_0^x \int_0^x f(t)dt dt dt=1/2 \int_0^x (x-t)^2 f(t)dt

Dear lord, that's awful. I'd read the lhs as
\int_0^x \int_0^x \int_0^x f(t)dt dt dt<br /> = \int_0^x \int_0^x \left( \int_0^x f(t)dt \right) dt_1 \; dt_2 <br /> = \int_0^x \int_0^x H(x) dt_1 \; dt_2 <br /> = x^2 H(x)<br /> = x^2 \int_0^x f(t) dt

while, what was probably meant is
<br /> \int_0^x \int_0^{t_2} \int_0^{t_1} f(t) dt \; dt_1 \; dt_2 = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^x (x-t)^2 f(t) dt.<br />
 
  • #12
Yikes, that's awful notation.
 
  • #13
jackmell said:
With all due respect Hall, I have not. It's from "A First Course in Integral Equations" by Abdul-Majid Wazwaz. It's on p. 20 and includes also, the expression:

\int_0^x \int_0^x \int_0^x f(t)dt dt dt=1/2 \int_0^x (x-t)^2 f(t)dt

That's the Cauchy formula for repeated integration. And you are not allowed to write it as dtdtdt. You must keep the variables separate.
##\int_{a}^x \int_a^{t_1}\ldots \int_a^{t_{n-1}}f(t_n) \, dt_n \, dt_{n-1} \ldots dt_1 = \frac{1}{(n-1)!} \int_a^x (x-t)^{n-1} f(t) \, dt.##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #14
pwsnafu said:
That's the Cauchy formula for repeated integration. And you are not allowed to write it as dtdtdt. You must keep the variables separate.
##\int_{a}^x \int_a^{t_1}\ldots \int_a^{t_{n-1}}f(t_n) \, dt_n \, dt_{n-1} \ldots dt_1 = \frac{1}{(n-1)!} \int_a^x (x-t)f(t) \, dt.##

Ok. Thanks! That makes sense to me now. Sorry for causing trouble.
 
  • #15
AakashPandita said:
I was trying to find the moment of inertia of a disk rotating at the axis through its center and perpendicular to it.

i got an integral for some function with (dx)^2 in it.

Please show how you derived that.
 
  • #16
I=\int_0^R dmr^2 dm=σπ[(r+dr)^2-r^2]
and then I put dm in first.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
I=\int_0^R dmr^2 ;dm=σπ[(r+dr)^2-r^2]
and then I put dm in first.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
What does ##(r+dr)^2## mean?

Edit: I think it should read ##dm = 2\sigma \pi r \, dr##, which is compatible with what you wrote if we take ##(dr)^2 = 0##.

Was there a textbook or a teacher who said you could square differentials? What made you think ##(r+dr)^2## is well defined?
 
Last edited:
  • #19
i tried to find the area of a ring by subtracting the area of smaller circle from larger circle.
The difference in the radii is dr.

area of ring =π[(r+dr)^2 - r^2]
 
  • #20
  • #21
AakashPandita said:
I=\int_0^R dmr^2 dm=σπ[(r+dr)^2-r^2]
and then I put dm in first.
Why do you have "dm" in twice?

This is using the concentric shells approach ... so the volume of the cylindrical shell between ##r## and ##r+dr## is the difference in the volumes of the cylinders:

##\pi h (r+dr)^2 - \pi h r^2## where h is the height of the cylinder.

If you multiply that out, you get ##\pi h (2rdr + dr^2)## ... but ##dr^2 = 0## ... remember that "dr" comes from a limit?

You can think of it like this:
If ##dr## is infinitesimally small, then any large power of it must be even smaller than that.
But "infinitesimal" is the smallest you can get without actually being zero.
Therefore...

[edit]pwnsnafu beat me to it :)The volume of the shell between r and r+dr is much better derived by taking the surface area of the cylinder radius r (excluding the end-caps) and multiplying it by dr. You can work out why this works by sketching it out.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K