What is the Order of Integration in a Double Integral?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the order of integration in a double integral, specifically in the context of calculating the center of mass of a semicircular disk using polar coordinates. Participants explore the implications of different limits of integration and the correctness of a given equation from a book.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants explain that the integral in question is used to find the center of mass of a semicircular disk, involving polar coordinates and area elements.
  • One participant expresses confusion over the limits of integration, noting that they do not match the variable of integration, suggesting this might indicate an error in the equation.
  • Another participant agrees with the calculation but points out that the integral used differs from the one on the cover art, raising concerns about the limits of integration.
  • Some participants assert that the formula on the cover is correct, proposing a substitution for the density to align with the calculated result.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of distributing the differential and questions the validity of this approach, seeking confirmation from others.
  • One participant mentions Fubini's theorem, asserting that the order of integration does not affect the outcome of the integral but emphasizes the importance of correctly defining the limits of integration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the correctness of the equation from the book, as participants express differing views on the limits of integration and the implications of the order of integration. Multiple competing perspectives remain regarding the interpretation and application of the integral.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential issues with the limits of integration and the order of integration, but these concerns remain unresolved. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of the mathematical formulation without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Chenkel
Messages
482
Reaction score
109
TL;DR
I'm trying to understand a strange integral in Chris McMullen's book "Essential Calculus-based PHYSICS"
Hello everyone!

I've been reading Mr. McMullen's book and took some curiosity in an equation on the cover art, it is as follows:$$y_{cm} = \frac \rho m \int_{r=0}^R\int_{\theta=0}^\pi (r\sin \theta)rdrd\theta$$I'm trying to understand what it means, firstly the limits of integration for the inner integral are theta, and we're integrating with respect to r; then on the outer integral, the limits of integration are r, and the variable we're integrating with respect to is theta. I'm used to the variable for the limits of integration matching the variable we're integrating with respect to, does this equation make sense to anyone? Let me know what you think, thank you!
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
It is the integral for finding the center of mass of a semicircular disk of uniform surface mass density ##\rho## using polar coordinates. The definition is ##y_{cm}=\frac{1}{m}\int y~dm.## An area element ##dm## is at ##y=r\sin\theta## and ##dm=\rho~dA=\rho(dr)(rd\theta)##. When all this is brought together into a double integral, the limits of integration are over a semicircle of radius ##R##.

Look in the book. This might be an example in the center of mass section.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2, Lnewqban and Chenkel
kuruman said:
It is the integral for finding the center of mass of a semicircular disk of uniform surface mass density ##\rho## using polar coordinates. The definition is ##y_{cm}=\frac{1}{m}\int y~dm.## An area element ##dm## is at ##y=r\sin\theta## and ##dm=\rho~dA=\rho(dr)(rd\theta)##. When all this is brought together into a double integral, the limits of integration are over a semicircle of radius ##R##.

Look in the book. This might be an example in the center of mass section.

I worked out the problem mechanically by hand, however I find I'm still coming to terms with the theory behind the double integral. I found it wasn't possible to come to an answer when the variable in the limits of integration is not the same as the variable we're integrating with respect to, so the equation on the cover art is incorrect if I'm not mistaken. This is my work:$$y_{cm} = \frac \rho m \int_{\theta = 0}^{\pi} \int_{r=0}^R r^2\sin \theta drd\theta$$$$y_{cm} = \frac \rho m \int_{\theta = 0}^{\pi} \frac {r^3} 3 \sin \theta |_{r=0}^Rd\theta$$$$y_{cm} = \frac \rho m (- \frac {R^3} 3 \cos \theta) |_{\theta=0}^\pi$$$$y_{cm} = \frac \rho m \frac {2R^3} 3$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2 and vanhees71
Chenkel said:
I worked out the problem mechanically by hand, however I find I'm still coming to terms with the theory behind the double integral. I found it wasn't possible to come to an answer when the variable in the limits of integration is not the same as the variable we're integrating with respect to, so the equation on the cover art is incorrect if I'm not mistaken. This is my work:$$y_{cm} = \frac \rho m \int_{\theta = 0}^{\pi} \int_{r=0}^R r^2\sin \theta drd\theta$$$$y_{cm} = \frac \rho m \int_{\theta = 0}^{\pi} \frac {r^3} 3 \sin \theta |_{r=0}^Rd\theta$$$$y_{cm} = \frac \rho m (- \frac {R^3} 3 \cos \theta) |_{\theta=0}^\pi$$$$y_{cm} = \frac \rho m \frac {2R^3} 3$$
The formula on the cover is correct and you calculated the relevant integral correctly, just replace $$\rho=\frac{m}{\frac{\pi R^2}{2}}$$ and you get the correct result.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban, vanhees71 and kuruman
Delta2 said:
The formula on the cover is correct and you calculated the relevant integral correctly, just replace $$\rho=\frac{m}{\frac{\pi R^2}{2}}$$ and you get the correct result.
That make sense to me. The only part that I might be a little semantic about is if the equation on the cover art is correct, for example, I believe the integral I used is not directly the same as the one on the cover art:

$$\frac \rho m \int_{r=0}^R\int_{\theta=0}^\pi (r\sin \theta)rdrd\theta \neq \frac \rho m \int_{\theta = 0}^{\pi} \int_{r=0}^R r^2\sin \theta drd\theta$$

Notice that one of the integrals has badly defined limits of integration.
 
Delta2 said:
The formula on the cover is correct and you calculated the relevant integral correctly, just replace $$\rho=\frac{m}{\frac{\pi R^2}{2}}$$ and you get the correct result.

I discovered we can also do the approach of distributing dr, so the equation on cover art may be correct:$$\int_{r=0}^R\int_{\theta=0}^\pi (r\sin\theta)rdrd\theta=\int_{r=0}^R(-\cos{\theta}r^2dr)|_{\theta=0}^\pi=\int_{r=0}^R(r^2dr + r^2dr)=\int_{r=0}^R2r^2dr$$
Is this a valid approach?
 
Last edited:
Just a heads up: I think typically you want to flip flop the order of the differentials to work from the inside out.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Chenkel
@Chenkel The order of integration doesn't matter in a double integral as there is Fubini's theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fubini's_theorem
But yes the order of integration (more specifically, the order at which the differentials are written) matters regarding the way the boundary of integration are written. Yes you are right that the first integral has boundaries of integration 0 to ##\pi## for ##r##, and from ##0## to ##R## for ##\theta## which simply isn't correct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban and Chenkel

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K