Simple volume calculation problem (double integrals)

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around evaluating the double integral of the function e^(x+y) over a rhombus defined by |x| + |y| ≤ 1. The initial approach involves integrating over the first quadrant and multiplying the result by four, but the participant realizes a mistake in their calculations. They explore using a change of variables to simplify the integration process, specifically suggesting u = x + y and v = x - y, which transforms the integral's limits and simplifies the computation. There is a preference expressed for a more analytical approach rather than relying on graphical representations to understand the problem. The conversation highlights the learning process and the challenges faced when tackling such integral problems independently.
xio
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
[EDIT]: Found the mistake, see the next post.

Homework Statement


Evaluate $$\iint_{S}{\rm e}^{x+y}dx\, dy,S=\{(x,y):\left|x\right|+\left|y\right|\leq1\} $$

2. The attempt at a solution
##\left|x\right|+\left|y\right|## is the rhombus with the center at the origin, symmetrical about both axes, so we find the volume at the first quadrant and then multiply by four.

2u5w3mx.png


##\varphi(x)=1-x## limits the region of integration and so we have, first integrating over ##y## : $$\iint_{S}{\rm e}^{x+y}dx\, dy=4\int_{0}^{1}\left[\int_{0}^{1-x}{\rm e}^{x}{\rm e}^{y}dy\right]dx=1\neq {\rm e}-{\rm e}^{-1}$$ (I know the correct answer which is ##{\rm e}-{\rm e}^{-1}## )

Apparently so simple, but I just can't see the mistake.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh Lord, ##{\rm e}^{x+y}## obviously isn't symmetric.
 
xio said:
Oh Lord, ##{\rm e}^{x+y}## obviously isn't symmetric.

True. Did you work the problem using the "obvious" change of variables?
 
LCKurtz said:
True. Did you work the problem using the "obvious" change of variables?

Hrm... I guess I cheated: I took the total volume to be the sum of volumes over the triangles formed by the axes and four diagonal lines (##x+1##, ##1-x##, ##-x-1##, ##x-1##): $$ \int_{-1}^{0}\left[\int_{0}^{x+1}{\rm e}^{x+y}dy\right]dx+\int_{-1}^{0}\left[\int_{-x-1}^{0}{\rm e}^{x+y}dy\right]dx+\ldots, $$ took the first one $$\int_{1}^{0}\left[\int_{0}^{x+1}{\rm e}^{x+y}dy\right]dx=\int_{-1}^{0}{\rm e}^{2x+1}-{\rm e}^{x}dx=\frac{1}{2}({\rm e}+{\rm e}^{-1})-1 $$ and then asked sage to do the rest because they are essentially the same and evaluating them all has no didactic value.

By the way, I'm learning this stuff on my own, so I might not know the standard way of approaching problems like this. My book (Apostol) says nothing about the change of variables if I understand correctly.

What I dislike about this sort of examples is that I have to plot some of the functions first to actually understand what's going; TBH I'd enjoyed more analytic (or algorithmic) approach, where the peculiarities of a particular example wouldn't matter.

(too many "I"'s in this post)
 
No, that's not what LCKurtz meant by "the obvious change of variables".

If you let u= x+ y and v= x- y, then x= (u+ v)/2 and y= (u- v)/2. The figure is then -1\le u\le 1, -1\le v\le 1.The Jacobean is 1/2 so the integral becomes
\frac{1}{2}\int_{u=-1}^1\int_{v=-1}^1 e^u dvdu
 
HallsofIvy said:
No, that's not what LCKurtz meant by "the obvious change of variables".

I never suggested that.

Change of variables is some ten subsections below my current position in Apostol, but I liked the technique, thank you.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K