Surface integral - question about "restrictions"

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the redundancy of specifying "in front of the yz-plane" when the problem already states "in the first octant," which implies x, y, and z are all non-negative. Participants agree that the restriction of x being greater than or equal to zero is inherently covered by the first octant definition. This leads to the conclusion that the additional phrase is unnecessary. The conversation highlights the importance of clarity and conciseness in mathematical problem statements. Overall, the consensus is that the problem could be simplified without losing meaning.
laser
Messages
104
Reaction score
17
Homework Statement
desc
Relevant Equations
desc
Screenshot_2.png

source: https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcIII/SurfaceIntegrals.aspx

I am not sure why the question had to say "in front of the yz-plane". If I understand correctly, that means x >= 0. However, isn't this restriction already accounted for by saying "in the first octant" which means x, y, z are all >= 0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree that the problem statement is redundant.
There’s no need to say “in front of the yz-plane” if it already says “in the first octant”.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K