Line integral with respect to x or y

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between line integrals and standard integrals, particularly focusing on the notation and interpretation of integrals with respect to variables x and y. The subject area includes calculus and integral theory.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the distinction between a line integral and a standard integral. Some participants question the context in which these integrals are considered different, while others provide classical definitions and interpretations of line integrals.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the definitions and implications of line integrals versus standard integrals. There is a recognition of the classical notation for line integrals, and some guidance is offered regarding the equivalence of certain forms of integration. However, there remains a sense of confusion regarding the intuitive understanding of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the change of variable formula, which may imply a need for further clarification on how this applies to the discussion at hand. The original poster's confusion suggests that there may be assumptions or definitions that require further examination.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
I am confused about how

[tex]\int_C f(x,y) dx = \lim_{||P|| \to 0} \sum_{i = 1}^n f(x_i^*,y_j^*) \Delta x_i[/tex] is different from [tex]\int f(x,y) dx[/tex]

where P is a partition and its norm is the length of its largest elements. The index i represents an element in that partition and the asterik means the endpoint closest to the origin of that part of the partition.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is there a context? Where did you see that they were different things? The classical notation for a line integral in the plane is

[tex]\int_C P(x,y)dx+Q(x,y)dy[/tex]

where this is to be understood as

[tex]\int_{a}^{b}P(x(t),y(t))\frac{dx}{dt}dt+\int_{a}^{b}Q(x(t),y(t))\frac{dy}{dt}dt[/tex]

Where t is the parameter for the curve C.

But if there is no Q(x,y), the integral turns out to be equivalent to a simple integration over x like you wrote.
 
quasar987 said:
Is there a context? Where did you see that they were different things? The classical notation for a line integral in the plane is

[tex]\int_C P(x,y)dx+Q(x,y)dy[/tex]

where this is to be understood as

[tex]\int_{a}^{b}P(x(t),y(t))\frac{dx}{dt}dt+\int_{a}^{b}Q(x(t),y(t))\frac{dy}{dt}dt[/tex]

Where t is the parameter for the curve C.

But if there is no Q(x,y), the integral turns out to be equivalent to a simple integration over x like you wrote.

So, you are saying

[tex]\int_{a}^{b}P(x(t),y(t))\frac{dx}{dt}dt = \int_{x(a)}^{x(b)}P(x,y)dx[/tex]

That seems unintuitive to me for some reason.
 
It's just the change of variable formula!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K