Pesky change of variables in integral

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the change of variables in a double integral involving a function \( F(t(1-s), ts) \). Participants explore the correct limits of integration after transforming the variables to \( x = t(1-s) \) and \( y = ts \). The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical explanations related to integration techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Wakabaloola expresses confusion about the limits of integration after changing variables and questions why they seem independent of \( f \).
  • One participant suggests a step-by-step approach to change variables, indicating that \( y = ts \) leads to specific limits for \( y \) and proposes switching the order of integration.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for the Jacobian when changing variables and provides a determinant calculation for the transformation.
  • There is a correction regarding the treatment of \( t \) as a constant, with a focus on how to properly derive the new limits and the Jacobian for the transformation.
  • Participants engage in a back-and-forth about a potential mistake in combining terms during the Jacobian calculation, with one participant clarifying the error and its implications.
  • Wakabaloola expresses satisfaction with the explanation provided in one of the posts, indicating a resolution to their initial confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

While some participants agree on the need for careful handling of the Jacobian and the limits of integration, there are differing views on the specifics of the calculations and the correct approach to the variable transformation. The discussion does not reach a consensus on all technical details.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly identifying the region of integration in both the original and transformed variables, as well as the necessity of considering the Jacobian in the transformation process. Some assumptions about the behavior of the function \( F \) and the limits of integration remain unresolved.

w4k4b4lool4
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

I've managed to confuse myself with a simple change of variables.

I have an integral of the form:
$$
I = \int_f^{\infty} dt \int_0^1 ds\, t\, F(t(1-s),ts),
$$
where $F(a,b)$ is some well behaved function and $f$ is a positive number. I want to change variables:
$$
x = t(1-s), \qquad y = ts,
$$
in terms of which the integral reads:
$$
I = \int_{x_i}^{x_f} dx \int_{y_i}^{y_f} dy\, F(x,y).
$$
I would naively conclude that:
$$
x_i=y_i=0,\qquad x_f=y_f=\infty,
$$
but this must be wrong because it is independent of f!

My question is: what are the limits of integration in the new variables and why?

Thanks in advance!
Wakabaloola
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I suggest you do it one step at a time. First y = ts, so dy = tds, while the y limits become 0 and t. Second step, switch integration order, so t is inner integral. Finally let x = t-y, so dx=dt and the x limits will change accordingly.
 
mathman said:
I suggest you do it one step at a time. First y = ts, so dy = tds, while the y limits become 0 and t. Second step, switch integration order, so t is inner integral. Finally let x = t-y, so dx=dt and the x limits will change accordingly.

So, first step leads to:
$$
I = \int_f^{\infty}dt \int_0^t dy F(t-y,y).
$$
How can I then switch the integration order (given that the y integral has t-dependent limits)?

Thanks for your response!
 
OK, I think I figured it out.

The region of integration in the (t,s) variables is the rectangle specified by the four vertices (f,0), (f,1), (L,1) and (L,0), with L->Infinity.

In the new variables (x,y), the region of of integration is a trapezoidal specified by four vertices (f,0), (0,f), (0,L) and (L,0), which (taking L->Infinity) can equivalently be described as the area of the first quadrant of the (x,y) plane less the area associated to a triangle with vertices (0,0), (0,f) and (f,0). That is,
$$
I = \int_0^{\infty}dx \int_0^{\infty}dy \,F(x,y) - \int_0^f dx\int_0^{f-x}dy\, F(x,y)
$$
 
mathman said:
I suggest you do it one step at a time. First y = ts, so dy = tds
You are treating t as a constant here which is not true.

, while the y limits become 0 and t. Second step, switch integration order, so t is inner integral. Finally let x = t-y, so dx=dt and the x limits will change accordingly.
You need, instead, the "Jacobian".
With x= t(1- s), y= st, t= x+ y and s= y/(x+ y).

[tex]dsdt= \left|\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\partial s}{\partial x} & \frac{\partial s}{\partial y} \\ \frac{\partial t}{\partial x} & \frac{\partial t}{\partial y}\end{array}\right|dxdy= \left|\begin{array}{cc} y & x+ 2y \\ 1 & 1 \end{array}\right|dxdy= -(x+y)dxdy[/tex]
 
HallsofIvy said:
You are treating t as a constant here which is not true.


You need, instead, the "Jacobian".
With x= t(1- s), y= st, t= x+ y and s= y/(x+ y).

[tex]dsdt= \left|\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\partial s}{\partial x} & \frac{\partial s}{\partial y} \\ \frac{\partial t}{\partial x} & \frac{\partial t}{\partial y}\end{array}\right|dxdy= \left|\begin{array}{cc} y & x+ 2y \\ 1 & 1 \end{array}\right|dxdy= -(x+y)dxdy[/tex]

I find instead:
$$
dx\wedge dy = (dt(1-s)-tds)\wedge (tds+sdt) = (1-s)t dt\wedge ds-st ds\wedge dt = tds\wedge dt
$$
 
You just made a small mistake with the combining of terms here.

[tex](1-s)t \; dt \wedge ds - st \; ds \wedge dt = (t - st + st) \; dt \wedge ds = t \; dt \wedge ds = - t \; ds \wedge dt[/tex]

Nevertheless, you already have the integral in terms of [itex]ds \wedge dt[/itex]. You'll have to go backwards to find it in terms of [itex]dx \wedge dy[/itex].
 
what mistake did I make, sorry I don't see it!
 
When you multiplied out [itex](1-s)t \; dt \wedge ds[/itex] you somehow got a term that was [itex]t \; ds \wedge dt[/itex] instead of [itex]t \; dt \wedge ds[/itex]. This caused your result to be off by a factor of -1.
 
  • #10
Oh yes, I see, thanks! (I may be dyslexic)
 
  • #11
Thanks to all who thought about this question!
I am satisfied with the answer in post n.4.
Wakabaloola
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K