Integral notation in physics and mathematics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences in integral notation used in physics versus mathematics, particularly in the context of area and volume integrals. Participants explore the implications of these notational differences and their relevance in various branches of mathematics and physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that physics books often use a single integral sign for area or volume integrals, while calculus books may use multiple integral signs, leading to questions about which notation is more correct or rigorous.
  • One participant suggests that the difference in notation is a matter of convention rather than correctness, indicating that physics exams may prioritize brevity over explicit notation.
  • Another participant mentions that in certain branches of mathematics, such as differential forms, it is common to use a single integral sign even for integrals over spaces of arbitrary dimensions.
  • There is a discussion about the equivalence of different notations, with some arguing that both notations can be used depending on the context and convenience.
  • A participant raises a question about the concept of closed volumes, leading to further exploration of the differences between closed and open volumes in higher dimensions.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the concept of closed volumes, prompting clarification about the relationship between closed lines, surfaces, and volumes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the differences in integral notation are largely a matter of convention and context. However, there remains uncertainty regarding the definitions and implications of closed versus open volumes, indicating that this aspect of the discussion is not fully resolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express limitations in their understanding of higher-dimensional concepts, particularly regarding closed volumes, which may affect the clarity of the discussion.

LucasGB
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
Why is it that every time I find an area or volume integral in my physics books, they are written using only one integral sign, while in calculus books they are written with two or three integral signs, respectively? Which one is more correct and rigorous?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Example?
 
In calculus books, vector flux is written as two integral signs (E . da). In physics books, vector flux is written as one integral sign (E . da). It's the concept of multiple integrals in calculus, which even though it is applied extensively to physics, it's done in a different notation. Which one is more correct?
 
It's not a matter of what is more rigorous or correct, it's a matter of notation. I guess that in a math exam, you'll be expected to write as many integral signs as needed, and to specify which integral corresponds to which variable, and in a physics exam they just won't care.

I guess physicts don't want to waste time on writing many integral signs :)
 
It depends what branch of mathematics you're talking about. Once you get into differential forms, you typically write only one integral sign, and often you are integrating over a space of arbitrary (but finite) dimension!
 
In R^3,

\int_{V} dV =\int\int\int dx dy dz

Just a matter of notation, they are equivalent.
 
OK, so I take from this that I can write it the way I think looks best?
 
Well the first way is more convenient and brief for some manipulations, but if you are going to explicitly carry out the triple integration, you will probably want to start by writing it like that. So yea write it whichever way seems good to you.
 
Hi LucasGB! :smile:

(have an integral: ∫ :wink:)

You can't have more ∫s than ds …

so you can't have ∫∫∫ dV, but you can have ∫∫∫ dxdydz​

and you can't have less ∫s than ds except that, in my opinion :rolleyes:, you can have only one ∫, purely to save space. :wink:
 
  • #10
tiny-tim said:
You can't have more ∫s than ds …

so you can't have ∫∫∫ dV, but you can have ∫∫∫ dxdydz​

and you can't have less ∫s than ds except that, in my opinion :rolleyes:, you can have only one ∫, purely to save space. :wink:

That's important, I didn't know that. Well, alright then, I'll stick to the single ∫ notation, at times I don't have to explicitly carry out the integral. And another thing, the integral symbol with the small circle in it stands for a closed integral, right? So for a line integral, it means you take the integral over a closed loop, and for a surface integral, it means you take the integral over a closed surface. But what about a volume integral? What the hell is a closed volume? :smile:
 
  • #11
I would guess that a closed volume will find the integral of a hypervolume in \mathbb{R}^4.
 
  • #12
Yes, but what IS a closed volume? What's the difference between a closed and an open volume?
 
  • #13
Sorry, my brain is limited to 3-D.
 
  • #14
Oh, I get what you're saying. A closed line forms a surface, and a closed surface forms a volume. Therefore, a closed volume would form a hypervolume. I'm sorry, I hadn't grapsed that before, and was under the assumption that closed and open volumes were objects that could be understood in 3D. I get it now, thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K