What is the difference between double and surface integrals?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences between double integrals and surface integrals, particularly focusing on their definitions, applications, and the implications of parametrization in multivariable calculus. Participants explore the conceptual understanding of these integrals in relation to measuring properties of surfaces and their projections onto the xy-plane.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that double integrals measure a multivariable function over a region of the domain, while surface integrals involve surfaces defined by two dependent parametrizations.
  • Another participant suggests that integrating over a parametrization of the surface and projecting down to the xy-plane is essentially the same, as the latter is a special case of parametrization.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that while both integrals can measure the height of a surface above the xy-plane, the interpretation of "both" is unclear, as parametric equations provide a more comprehensive description of the surface.
  • One participant points out that using parametric equations can be advantageous for surfaces where z is not a function of x and y, such as the unit sphere, which requires separate treatment if using a function form.
  • A later reply indicates that in the case of a planar surface, the surface integral may equal the double integral, as the "shadow" of the surface would coincide with the surface itself, leading to the same result regardless of the parametrization used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between double and surface integrals, particularly regarding the implications of parametrization and the conditions under which the two integrals yield the same results. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, particularly the clarity of the term "both" in relation to measuring height.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of parametrization in defining surfaces and integrating over them, but do not resolve the nuances of when double and surface integrals may yield equivalent results. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of the role of projections in understanding these integrals.

Manaf
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi eveybody,
I'm having trouble in surface integrals. I know already what the double integrals measure; a multivariable function ( drawing surface) over "a region of domain"..
Now, the surface integrals are for surfaces given by 2-dependent parametrizations over " the surface".
my questions are:
1. What is the difference between the integrations of the surfaces in the 2 cases? in other words, what difference would it make if it was over the domain or the surface? aren't they the same and isn't the domain just the projection of the surface on the xy-plane?
2. Do both measure the "height" of the surface from the xy-plane, but over different veiws of space?

thanks a lot in advance:smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you asking what the difference is between integrating over some parametrization of the surface vs projecting down to the xy plane and integrating over its "shadow"? Well the latter is just a special kind of parametrization, so there isn't really a difference. And, yes, in a way you are measuring the height of a surface above the xy plane, where this surface corresponds to the function you actually integrate, after finding the surface area element dA in terms of dxdy and multiplying the original function for the surface by this transformation.
 
Last edited:
A surface is two dimensional and so can be written in terms of two parameters. If I understand what you are saying, when you talk about an integration over a "region of domain". You are really just talking about the situation where the parameters are x and y themselves: z= f(x,y) as opposed to x= h(u,v), y= g(u,v), z= f(u,v). The first is just a special case of the second: x= x, y= y, z= f(x,y) is the same as x= u, y= v, z= f(u,v).
When you ask, "Do both measure the "height" of the surface from the xy-plane" it's not clear what you mean by "both". z measures the height above the x,y plane but parametric equations give x, y, and z.

One advantage of the parametric form is with surfaces where z is NOT a function of x and y. For example, to integrate a function over the surface of the unit sphere, [itex]x^2+ y^2+ z^2= 1[/itex] to write z= f(x,y), I would have to do top and bottom separately:
[itex]z= \sqrt{1- x^2- y^2}[/itex] and [itex]z= -\sqrt{1- x^2- y^2}[/itex]

However, I can also write [itex]x= cos(\theta)sin(\phi)[/itex], [itex]y= sin(\theta)sin(\phi)[/itex], [itex]z= cos(\phi)[/itex] (in other words, use spherical coordinates with [itex]\rho[/itex] set to 1). That will cover the entire sphere with [itex]0\le \theta \le 2\pi[/itex] and [itex]0\le \phi\le \pi[/itex]
 
thanks a lot..it really helped me..
just to make sure I got it, when the parametrization gives a plane not curved surface, then ,in this special case, the surface integral will equal its double integral since the "shadow" will be the same as the surface, and dS will have " the length of cross product of r u and r v" equal to the arc length in front of dA. Therefore, in this case, will both integrals give the same answer? ; whether you parametrize or write it as
z=f(x,y) (x, y parameters), it is different ways to the same solution.

thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K