(Slightly OT) Multiple integrals in LaTeX

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around formatting multiple integrals in LaTeX, specifically focusing on how to present limits for triple integrals in a visually appealing manner. Participants explore various methods for expressing complex conditions within the integral limits.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about making the limits in a triple integral look acceptable, providing an example with multiple conditions.
  • Another participant suggests using \limits_{down}^{up} to place text above and below the integral signs, but expresses dissatisfaction with the appearance.
  • A different approach is proposed to define a region R for the integral, which some participants agree may be a better solution.
  • One participant questions the logic of having an integral with no upper limit on x, suggesting a specific example of a bounded integral instead.
  • Another participant clarifies that the original limits were merely illustrative and not intended for actual computation.
  • A suggestion is made to stack the conditions in the limit using \substack for better formatting, though it is acknowledged that it may still not look ideal.
  • One participant proposes setting lower and upper limits for the integral, indicating a potential alternative approach.
  • Another participant reiterates that the limits were examples, emphasizing the challenges in expressing certain iterated integrals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the best way to format the limits of multiple integrals, with no consensus reached on a single preferred method. Some agree on the utility of defining regions for integration, while others challenge the feasibility of certain limits.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of expressing certain conditions in integrals, indicating that some scenarios may not allow for straightforward iterated integrals. The discussion reflects varying levels of comfort with LaTeX formatting and mathematical notation.

Muzza
Messages
689
Reaction score
1
How do you make the limits in a triple integral look okay? I need to write something like:

\iiint_{x \geq 3, y \geq 4, z \geq 5, 2z - x \geq 5} f(x, y, z)\, dx\,dy\,dz

but it looks kind of silly right now.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you use \ limits_{down}^{up} you can get the text 'down' and 'up' above and below the integral signs. Also works for summation symbols.

\iiint \limits_{x \geq 3, y \geq 4, z \geq 5, 2z - x \geq 5} f(x, y, z)\, dx\,dy\,dz

But it still looks crappy. :frown:

I'd advice just writing
\iiint \limits_{R} f(x, y, z)\, dx\,dy\,dz
where
R=\{(x,y,z)|x \geq 3, y \geq 4, z \geq 5, 2z - x \geq 5\}
 
Last edited:
You're right. I'm probably better off just defining some set S = {(x, y, z); x >= 3, blah} and taking the integral over S.
 
I'm wondering what in the world you mean! You want to take an integral over x\ge 3 but no upper limit on x? That just doesn't make sense.

If you want something like
\int_{x=3}^{5}\int_{y= 4}^{5- x}\int_{z=5}^{x+ y}f(x,y,z)dzdydx
click on the LaTex to see how it is done.
 
It's an improper integral. But this is all beside the point, I don't actually want to compute this particular integral. It was just an example I pulled out of thin air to illustrate my point.
 
Last edited:
You should be able to stack the conditions in the limit:

\iiint \limits_{\substack{x \geq 3,\\ y \geq 4,\\ z \geq 5,\\ 2z - x \geq 5}} f(x, y, z)\, dx\,dy\,dz

ok, not very nice as-is, but multiline limits should give more flexibility.
 
Why not just give each integral sign -- say, the one for the variable x -- a lower limit of 3 and an upper limit of infinity?

- Warren
 
Again, the limits in my original post were just examples. There are situations where it's difficult or even impossible to write down the iterated integral, hence the need for descriptions like those in my first post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
948