Is it possible to integrate something that isn't a function?











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












How would you "find the area under the curve" of something that isn't quite a curve? The graph may be curved at places, but if it's not a function (the same x value has more than one corresponding y value) when how would you find the area of it? Is it possible? Just curious.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 7




    This is basically an ill-posed question. You would have to start from scratch and discuss what it means to do calculus on things that aren't functions. Unless of course you are just referring to finding the area of certain bounded regions? Like the area of the region bounded by $x^2+y^2=1$?
    – BlarglFlarg
    Dec 2 at 17:51












  • Do you mean something along the lines of integrating a multifunction?
    – YiFan
    Dec 3 at 7:47















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












How would you "find the area under the curve" of something that isn't quite a curve? The graph may be curved at places, but if it's not a function (the same x value has more than one corresponding y value) when how would you find the area of it? Is it possible? Just curious.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 7




    This is basically an ill-posed question. You would have to start from scratch and discuss what it means to do calculus on things that aren't functions. Unless of course you are just referring to finding the area of certain bounded regions? Like the area of the region bounded by $x^2+y^2=1$?
    – BlarglFlarg
    Dec 2 at 17:51












  • Do you mean something along the lines of integrating a multifunction?
    – YiFan
    Dec 3 at 7:47













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











How would you "find the area under the curve" of something that isn't quite a curve? The graph may be curved at places, but if it's not a function (the same x value has more than one corresponding y value) when how would you find the area of it? Is it possible? Just curious.










share|cite|improve this question













How would you "find the area under the curve" of something that isn't quite a curve? The graph may be curved at places, but if it's not a function (the same x value has more than one corresponding y value) when how would you find the area of it? Is it possible? Just curious.







calculus integration area






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 2 at 17:50









James Ronald

526




526








  • 7




    This is basically an ill-posed question. You would have to start from scratch and discuss what it means to do calculus on things that aren't functions. Unless of course you are just referring to finding the area of certain bounded regions? Like the area of the region bounded by $x^2+y^2=1$?
    – BlarglFlarg
    Dec 2 at 17:51












  • Do you mean something along the lines of integrating a multifunction?
    – YiFan
    Dec 3 at 7:47














  • 7




    This is basically an ill-posed question. You would have to start from scratch and discuss what it means to do calculus on things that aren't functions. Unless of course you are just referring to finding the area of certain bounded regions? Like the area of the region bounded by $x^2+y^2=1$?
    – BlarglFlarg
    Dec 2 at 17:51












  • Do you mean something along the lines of integrating a multifunction?
    – YiFan
    Dec 3 at 7:47








7




7




This is basically an ill-posed question. You would have to start from scratch and discuss what it means to do calculus on things that aren't functions. Unless of course you are just referring to finding the area of certain bounded regions? Like the area of the region bounded by $x^2+y^2=1$?
– BlarglFlarg
Dec 2 at 17:51






This is basically an ill-posed question. You would have to start from scratch and discuss what it means to do calculus on things that aren't functions. Unless of course you are just referring to finding the area of certain bounded regions? Like the area of the region bounded by $x^2+y^2=1$?
– BlarglFlarg
Dec 2 at 17:51














Do you mean something along the lines of integrating a multifunction?
– YiFan
Dec 3 at 7:47




Do you mean something along the lines of integrating a multifunction?
– YiFan
Dec 3 at 7:47










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
7
down vote













Absolutely, this is called a curvilinear integral. It works when the curve is given by parametric equations. If the curve is closed, you can obtain its area by integrating one of $x,dy$ or $-y,dx$.



E.g. with a full circle,



$$x=rcos t,y=rsin t$$ and



$$A=int_0^{2pi}rcos t,d(rsin t)=r^2int_0^{2pi}cos^2t,dt=pi r^2.$$






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    Find a way to describe it with a function and integrate that. For example you might be trying to find the area between two curves. So you'd let $f(x)$ be the distance between the two curves and integrate that with respect to $x$.



    BTW, integration (thought of geometrically) isn't necessarily about the area under a curve. Loosely speaking it's really about adding up infinitely many infinitely small areas. These might be slices under a curve, or they might be something else. For instance one way to derive the area of a circle is to use concentric slices: it's no accident that integrating $2pi r$ gives $pi r^2$. You could straighten them out and say they're slices of the area under a graph of $y=2pi r$, but really theyre slices of the circle.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • Breaking up into functions can be extremely ugly: "Consider an annulus centered at $(x, x)$ with inner radius $r$ and outer radius $R$, such that exactly 1/3 of its total area lies in the first quadrant of the plane. Solve for $x$ in terms of $R$ and $r$. A solution must exist by the intermediate value theorem." Now you have to deal with the inner and outer curves, from above and below, and it gets even worse if $xsqrt{2} > r$ (which is rather hard to determine since $x$ is unknown and $r$ varies freely).
      – Kevin
      Dec 2 at 19:48












    • @Kevin That definitely sounds like a case where my second paragraph applies! Start by changing the coordinates so the annulus is centred on the origin I suppose, with the original axes being a couple of lines the required portion must lie between, then take concentric slices, get the arc length of a slice in terms of its radius, then integrate that? That would be my attempt (probably subdivided into slices which intersected one line, both or none)
      – timtfj
      Dec 2 at 20:37




















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Another, more encompassing way to look at integrals is not to look at functions, but introduce a class of objects which can be integrated, called (differential) forms. An example of such forms are $f(x) dx$ and $g(x) dx$. Already based on this little information, we can already derive a number of nice properties: they are linear (because integrals are), we know how they transform under a class of changes of variables (the chain rule): $f(y) dy = f(y(x)) y'(x) dx$ etc. In this way, we can already think of a one-dimensional integral not as an integral of a function (where the integral is $int (cdot) dx$ with a slot for a function) but as an integral of a form (where the integral is $int (cdot)$ with a slot for a form).



    What's interesting about them is their generalization to multivariate calculus. In the simplest case, an integral $int f(x,y) dx dy$ leads to the form $f(x,y)dx dy$, and we would think of differential forms as just a bit of notational hocus-pocus. Their real power comes from the way they deal with variable changes. In multivariate integration, a change of variables is accompanied by the Jacobian, which is a generalization of the derivative term $y'(x)$ in the one-dimensional case. Expressing $x,y$ as functions of a different set of variables $x(u,v),y(u,v)$, the integral transforms as
    $$
    int f(x,y)dxdy = int f(x(u,v),y(u,v)) |J(u,v)| du dv,
    $$

    where
    $$
    |J(u,v)| = left|detleft(left.frac{partial(x,y)}{partial(u,v)}right|_{x=x(u,v),y=y(u,v)}right)right|=left|frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right|
    $$

    is the absolute value of the determinant of the Jacobian matrix. This seems like a complicated prescription, and it is, but we can automate this process by making our forms a tiny bit more powerful: first, we introduce the wedge product (I'm restricting myself to two dimensions for the sake of simplicity) $dxwedge dy$ with the property
    $$
    dxwedge dy = -dywedge dx.
    $$

    This antisymmetry will end up leading to all the right signs for the evaluation of the determinant. Second, we make the $d$ a tiny bit more powerful, by defining its effect on an arbitrary function
    $$
    d f(x,y) = frac{partial f}{partial x}dx + frac{partial f}{partial y}dy,
    $$

    additionally requiring linearity in the obvious way. Third, we define that any integral of a differential form $f,dxwedge dy$ can be evaluated the usual way $int f,dxwedge dy:=int f, dx, dy$ (this defines the sign in particular).



    How is this useful? Let's plug in our previous change of variables, and evaluate $f(u,v)duwedge dv$ which we can think of as shorthand for $f(u(x,y),v(x,y))du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)$. Looking only at the $d$'s we get as a first step
    $$
    du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}dx + frac{partial u}{partial y}dyright)wedgeleft(frac{partial v}{partial x}dx + frac{partial v}{partial y}dyright).
    $$

    Distributing out the parentheses while taking into account that from antisymmetry $dxwedge dx = -dx wedge dx=0$, we get
    $$
    du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=frac{partial u}{partial x}dx wedge frac{partial v}{partial y}dy + frac{partial u}{partial y}dywedge frac{partial v}{partial x}dx.
    $$

    Collecting terms, taking into account that $dywedge dx = -dxwedge dy$, we obtain
    $$du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right) dxwedge dy,
    $$

    where we have recovered the determinant of the Jacobian. In other words, our forms automatically give us the right transformation of the integral (modulo a sign from the missing absolute value, but the meaning of a negative volume is situational anyway). This procedure straightforwardly generalizes to higher dimensions and to spaces that are more complex than $mathbb{R}^n$, always effectuating the correct change of integral measure automatically, and we can write our form in terms of whatever coordinates are most useful.



    Another way how this automatic handling of the change of variables makes life simpler are forms like $fdx + gdy$, taking us back to your original question. We can now leave evaluation as an exercise to the reader :-)



    In this sense it is actually much more natural to think of integrals as operations on differential forms instead of functions.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • Are you trying to drown the OP ? ;-)
      – Yves Daoust
      Dec 3 at 10:17










    • Lol at least I could refrain from introducing manifolds, tensors and the cohomology.
      – tobi_s
      Dec 4 at 2:41











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022958%2fis-it-possible-to-integrate-something-that-isnt-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    7
    down vote













    Absolutely, this is called a curvilinear integral. It works when the curve is given by parametric equations. If the curve is closed, you can obtain its area by integrating one of $x,dy$ or $-y,dx$.



    E.g. with a full circle,



    $$x=rcos t,y=rsin t$$ and



    $$A=int_0^{2pi}rcos t,d(rsin t)=r^2int_0^{2pi}cos^2t,dt=pi r^2.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      7
      down vote













      Absolutely, this is called a curvilinear integral. It works when the curve is given by parametric equations. If the curve is closed, you can obtain its area by integrating one of $x,dy$ or $-y,dx$.



      E.g. with a full circle,



      $$x=rcos t,y=rsin t$$ and



      $$A=int_0^{2pi}rcos t,d(rsin t)=r^2int_0^{2pi}cos^2t,dt=pi r^2.$$






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        7
        down vote










        up vote
        7
        down vote









        Absolutely, this is called a curvilinear integral. It works when the curve is given by parametric equations. If the curve is closed, you can obtain its area by integrating one of $x,dy$ or $-y,dx$.



        E.g. with a full circle,



        $$x=rcos t,y=rsin t$$ and



        $$A=int_0^{2pi}rcos t,d(rsin t)=r^2int_0^{2pi}cos^2t,dt=pi r^2.$$






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Absolutely, this is called a curvilinear integral. It works when the curve is given by parametric equations. If the curve is closed, you can obtain its area by integrating one of $x,dy$ or $-y,dx$.



        E.g. with a full circle,



        $$x=rcos t,y=rsin t$$ and



        $$A=int_0^{2pi}rcos t,d(rsin t)=r^2int_0^{2pi}cos^2t,dt=pi r^2.$$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 3 at 10:17

























        answered Dec 2 at 18:14









        Yves Daoust

        123k668219




        123k668219






















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            Find a way to describe it with a function and integrate that. For example you might be trying to find the area between two curves. So you'd let $f(x)$ be the distance between the two curves and integrate that with respect to $x$.



            BTW, integration (thought of geometrically) isn't necessarily about the area under a curve. Loosely speaking it's really about adding up infinitely many infinitely small areas. These might be slices under a curve, or they might be something else. For instance one way to derive the area of a circle is to use concentric slices: it's no accident that integrating $2pi r$ gives $pi r^2$. You could straighten them out and say they're slices of the area under a graph of $y=2pi r$, but really theyre slices of the circle.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Breaking up into functions can be extremely ugly: "Consider an annulus centered at $(x, x)$ with inner radius $r$ and outer radius $R$, such that exactly 1/3 of its total area lies in the first quadrant of the plane. Solve for $x$ in terms of $R$ and $r$. A solution must exist by the intermediate value theorem." Now you have to deal with the inner and outer curves, from above and below, and it gets even worse if $xsqrt{2} > r$ (which is rather hard to determine since $x$ is unknown and $r$ varies freely).
              – Kevin
              Dec 2 at 19:48












            • @Kevin That definitely sounds like a case where my second paragraph applies! Start by changing the coordinates so the annulus is centred on the origin I suppose, with the original axes being a couple of lines the required portion must lie between, then take concentric slices, get the arc length of a slice in terms of its radius, then integrate that? That would be my attempt (probably subdivided into slices which intersected one line, both or none)
              – timtfj
              Dec 2 at 20:37

















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            Find a way to describe it with a function and integrate that. For example you might be trying to find the area between two curves. So you'd let $f(x)$ be the distance between the two curves and integrate that with respect to $x$.



            BTW, integration (thought of geometrically) isn't necessarily about the area under a curve. Loosely speaking it's really about adding up infinitely many infinitely small areas. These might be slices under a curve, or they might be something else. For instance one way to derive the area of a circle is to use concentric slices: it's no accident that integrating $2pi r$ gives $pi r^2$. You could straighten them out and say they're slices of the area under a graph of $y=2pi r$, but really theyre slices of the circle.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Breaking up into functions can be extremely ugly: "Consider an annulus centered at $(x, x)$ with inner radius $r$ and outer radius $R$, such that exactly 1/3 of its total area lies in the first quadrant of the plane. Solve for $x$ in terms of $R$ and $r$. A solution must exist by the intermediate value theorem." Now you have to deal with the inner and outer curves, from above and below, and it gets even worse if $xsqrt{2} > r$ (which is rather hard to determine since $x$ is unknown and $r$ varies freely).
              – Kevin
              Dec 2 at 19:48












            • @Kevin That definitely sounds like a case where my second paragraph applies! Start by changing the coordinates so the annulus is centred on the origin I suppose, with the original axes being a couple of lines the required portion must lie between, then take concentric slices, get the arc length of a slice in terms of its radius, then integrate that? That would be my attempt (probably subdivided into slices which intersected one line, both or none)
              – timtfj
              Dec 2 at 20:37















            up vote
            3
            down vote










            up vote
            3
            down vote









            Find a way to describe it with a function and integrate that. For example you might be trying to find the area between two curves. So you'd let $f(x)$ be the distance between the two curves and integrate that with respect to $x$.



            BTW, integration (thought of geometrically) isn't necessarily about the area under a curve. Loosely speaking it's really about adding up infinitely many infinitely small areas. These might be slices under a curve, or they might be something else. For instance one way to derive the area of a circle is to use concentric slices: it's no accident that integrating $2pi r$ gives $pi r^2$. You could straighten them out and say they're slices of the area under a graph of $y=2pi r$, but really theyre slices of the circle.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Find a way to describe it with a function and integrate that. For example you might be trying to find the area between two curves. So you'd let $f(x)$ be the distance between the two curves and integrate that with respect to $x$.



            BTW, integration (thought of geometrically) isn't necessarily about the area under a curve. Loosely speaking it's really about adding up infinitely many infinitely small areas. These might be slices under a curve, or they might be something else. For instance one way to derive the area of a circle is to use concentric slices: it's no accident that integrating $2pi r$ gives $pi r^2$. You could straighten them out and say they're slices of the area under a graph of $y=2pi r$, but really theyre slices of the circle.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 3 at 10:59

























            answered Dec 2 at 18:09









            timtfj

            688215




            688215












            • Breaking up into functions can be extremely ugly: "Consider an annulus centered at $(x, x)$ with inner radius $r$ and outer radius $R$, such that exactly 1/3 of its total area lies in the first quadrant of the plane. Solve for $x$ in terms of $R$ and $r$. A solution must exist by the intermediate value theorem." Now you have to deal with the inner and outer curves, from above and below, and it gets even worse if $xsqrt{2} > r$ (which is rather hard to determine since $x$ is unknown and $r$ varies freely).
              – Kevin
              Dec 2 at 19:48












            • @Kevin That definitely sounds like a case where my second paragraph applies! Start by changing the coordinates so the annulus is centred on the origin I suppose, with the original axes being a couple of lines the required portion must lie between, then take concentric slices, get the arc length of a slice in terms of its radius, then integrate that? That would be my attempt (probably subdivided into slices which intersected one line, both or none)
              – timtfj
              Dec 2 at 20:37




















            • Breaking up into functions can be extremely ugly: "Consider an annulus centered at $(x, x)$ with inner radius $r$ and outer radius $R$, such that exactly 1/3 of its total area lies in the first quadrant of the plane. Solve for $x$ in terms of $R$ and $r$. A solution must exist by the intermediate value theorem." Now you have to deal with the inner and outer curves, from above and below, and it gets even worse if $xsqrt{2} > r$ (which is rather hard to determine since $x$ is unknown and $r$ varies freely).
              – Kevin
              Dec 2 at 19:48












            • @Kevin That definitely sounds like a case where my second paragraph applies! Start by changing the coordinates so the annulus is centred on the origin I suppose, with the original axes being a couple of lines the required portion must lie between, then take concentric slices, get the arc length of a slice in terms of its radius, then integrate that? That would be my attempt (probably subdivided into slices which intersected one line, both or none)
              – timtfj
              Dec 2 at 20:37


















            Breaking up into functions can be extremely ugly: "Consider an annulus centered at $(x, x)$ with inner radius $r$ and outer radius $R$, such that exactly 1/3 of its total area lies in the first quadrant of the plane. Solve for $x$ in terms of $R$ and $r$. A solution must exist by the intermediate value theorem." Now you have to deal with the inner and outer curves, from above and below, and it gets even worse if $xsqrt{2} > r$ (which is rather hard to determine since $x$ is unknown and $r$ varies freely).
            – Kevin
            Dec 2 at 19:48






            Breaking up into functions can be extremely ugly: "Consider an annulus centered at $(x, x)$ with inner radius $r$ and outer radius $R$, such that exactly 1/3 of its total area lies in the first quadrant of the plane. Solve for $x$ in terms of $R$ and $r$. A solution must exist by the intermediate value theorem." Now you have to deal with the inner and outer curves, from above and below, and it gets even worse if $xsqrt{2} > r$ (which is rather hard to determine since $x$ is unknown and $r$ varies freely).
            – Kevin
            Dec 2 at 19:48














            @Kevin That definitely sounds like a case where my second paragraph applies! Start by changing the coordinates so the annulus is centred on the origin I suppose, with the original axes being a couple of lines the required portion must lie between, then take concentric slices, get the arc length of a slice in terms of its radius, then integrate that? That would be my attempt (probably subdivided into slices which intersected one line, both or none)
            – timtfj
            Dec 2 at 20:37






            @Kevin That definitely sounds like a case where my second paragraph applies! Start by changing the coordinates so the annulus is centred on the origin I suppose, with the original axes being a couple of lines the required portion must lie between, then take concentric slices, get the arc length of a slice in terms of its radius, then integrate that? That would be my attempt (probably subdivided into slices which intersected one line, both or none)
            – timtfj
            Dec 2 at 20:37












            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Another, more encompassing way to look at integrals is not to look at functions, but introduce a class of objects which can be integrated, called (differential) forms. An example of such forms are $f(x) dx$ and $g(x) dx$. Already based on this little information, we can already derive a number of nice properties: they are linear (because integrals are), we know how they transform under a class of changes of variables (the chain rule): $f(y) dy = f(y(x)) y'(x) dx$ etc. In this way, we can already think of a one-dimensional integral not as an integral of a function (where the integral is $int (cdot) dx$ with a slot for a function) but as an integral of a form (where the integral is $int (cdot)$ with a slot for a form).



            What's interesting about them is their generalization to multivariate calculus. In the simplest case, an integral $int f(x,y) dx dy$ leads to the form $f(x,y)dx dy$, and we would think of differential forms as just a bit of notational hocus-pocus. Their real power comes from the way they deal with variable changes. In multivariate integration, a change of variables is accompanied by the Jacobian, which is a generalization of the derivative term $y'(x)$ in the one-dimensional case. Expressing $x,y$ as functions of a different set of variables $x(u,v),y(u,v)$, the integral transforms as
            $$
            int f(x,y)dxdy = int f(x(u,v),y(u,v)) |J(u,v)| du dv,
            $$

            where
            $$
            |J(u,v)| = left|detleft(left.frac{partial(x,y)}{partial(u,v)}right|_{x=x(u,v),y=y(u,v)}right)right|=left|frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right|
            $$

            is the absolute value of the determinant of the Jacobian matrix. This seems like a complicated prescription, and it is, but we can automate this process by making our forms a tiny bit more powerful: first, we introduce the wedge product (I'm restricting myself to two dimensions for the sake of simplicity) $dxwedge dy$ with the property
            $$
            dxwedge dy = -dywedge dx.
            $$

            This antisymmetry will end up leading to all the right signs for the evaluation of the determinant. Second, we make the $d$ a tiny bit more powerful, by defining its effect on an arbitrary function
            $$
            d f(x,y) = frac{partial f}{partial x}dx + frac{partial f}{partial y}dy,
            $$

            additionally requiring linearity in the obvious way. Third, we define that any integral of a differential form $f,dxwedge dy$ can be evaluated the usual way $int f,dxwedge dy:=int f, dx, dy$ (this defines the sign in particular).



            How is this useful? Let's plug in our previous change of variables, and evaluate $f(u,v)duwedge dv$ which we can think of as shorthand for $f(u(x,y),v(x,y))du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)$. Looking only at the $d$'s we get as a first step
            $$
            du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}dx + frac{partial u}{partial y}dyright)wedgeleft(frac{partial v}{partial x}dx + frac{partial v}{partial y}dyright).
            $$

            Distributing out the parentheses while taking into account that from antisymmetry $dxwedge dx = -dx wedge dx=0$, we get
            $$
            du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=frac{partial u}{partial x}dx wedge frac{partial v}{partial y}dy + frac{partial u}{partial y}dywedge frac{partial v}{partial x}dx.
            $$

            Collecting terms, taking into account that $dywedge dx = -dxwedge dy$, we obtain
            $$du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right) dxwedge dy,
            $$

            where we have recovered the determinant of the Jacobian. In other words, our forms automatically give us the right transformation of the integral (modulo a sign from the missing absolute value, but the meaning of a negative volume is situational anyway). This procedure straightforwardly generalizes to higher dimensions and to spaces that are more complex than $mathbb{R}^n$, always effectuating the correct change of integral measure automatically, and we can write our form in terms of whatever coordinates are most useful.



            Another way how this automatic handling of the change of variables makes life simpler are forms like $fdx + gdy$, taking us back to your original question. We can now leave evaluation as an exercise to the reader :-)



            In this sense it is actually much more natural to think of integrals as operations on differential forms instead of functions.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Are you trying to drown the OP ? ;-)
              – Yves Daoust
              Dec 3 at 10:17










            • Lol at least I could refrain from introducing manifolds, tensors and the cohomology.
              – tobi_s
              Dec 4 at 2:41















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Another, more encompassing way to look at integrals is not to look at functions, but introduce a class of objects which can be integrated, called (differential) forms. An example of such forms are $f(x) dx$ and $g(x) dx$. Already based on this little information, we can already derive a number of nice properties: they are linear (because integrals are), we know how they transform under a class of changes of variables (the chain rule): $f(y) dy = f(y(x)) y'(x) dx$ etc. In this way, we can already think of a one-dimensional integral not as an integral of a function (where the integral is $int (cdot) dx$ with a slot for a function) but as an integral of a form (where the integral is $int (cdot)$ with a slot for a form).



            What's interesting about them is their generalization to multivariate calculus. In the simplest case, an integral $int f(x,y) dx dy$ leads to the form $f(x,y)dx dy$, and we would think of differential forms as just a bit of notational hocus-pocus. Their real power comes from the way they deal with variable changes. In multivariate integration, a change of variables is accompanied by the Jacobian, which is a generalization of the derivative term $y'(x)$ in the one-dimensional case. Expressing $x,y$ as functions of a different set of variables $x(u,v),y(u,v)$, the integral transforms as
            $$
            int f(x,y)dxdy = int f(x(u,v),y(u,v)) |J(u,v)| du dv,
            $$

            where
            $$
            |J(u,v)| = left|detleft(left.frac{partial(x,y)}{partial(u,v)}right|_{x=x(u,v),y=y(u,v)}right)right|=left|frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right|
            $$

            is the absolute value of the determinant of the Jacobian matrix. This seems like a complicated prescription, and it is, but we can automate this process by making our forms a tiny bit more powerful: first, we introduce the wedge product (I'm restricting myself to two dimensions for the sake of simplicity) $dxwedge dy$ with the property
            $$
            dxwedge dy = -dywedge dx.
            $$

            This antisymmetry will end up leading to all the right signs for the evaluation of the determinant. Second, we make the $d$ a tiny bit more powerful, by defining its effect on an arbitrary function
            $$
            d f(x,y) = frac{partial f}{partial x}dx + frac{partial f}{partial y}dy,
            $$

            additionally requiring linearity in the obvious way. Third, we define that any integral of a differential form $f,dxwedge dy$ can be evaluated the usual way $int f,dxwedge dy:=int f, dx, dy$ (this defines the sign in particular).



            How is this useful? Let's plug in our previous change of variables, and evaluate $f(u,v)duwedge dv$ which we can think of as shorthand for $f(u(x,y),v(x,y))du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)$. Looking only at the $d$'s we get as a first step
            $$
            du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}dx + frac{partial u}{partial y}dyright)wedgeleft(frac{partial v}{partial x}dx + frac{partial v}{partial y}dyright).
            $$

            Distributing out the parentheses while taking into account that from antisymmetry $dxwedge dx = -dx wedge dx=0$, we get
            $$
            du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=frac{partial u}{partial x}dx wedge frac{partial v}{partial y}dy + frac{partial u}{partial y}dywedge frac{partial v}{partial x}dx.
            $$

            Collecting terms, taking into account that $dywedge dx = -dxwedge dy$, we obtain
            $$du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right) dxwedge dy,
            $$

            where we have recovered the determinant of the Jacobian. In other words, our forms automatically give us the right transformation of the integral (modulo a sign from the missing absolute value, but the meaning of a negative volume is situational anyway). This procedure straightforwardly generalizes to higher dimensions and to spaces that are more complex than $mathbb{R}^n$, always effectuating the correct change of integral measure automatically, and we can write our form in terms of whatever coordinates are most useful.



            Another way how this automatic handling of the change of variables makes life simpler are forms like $fdx + gdy$, taking us back to your original question. We can now leave evaluation as an exercise to the reader :-)



            In this sense it is actually much more natural to think of integrals as operations on differential forms instead of functions.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Are you trying to drown the OP ? ;-)
              – Yves Daoust
              Dec 3 at 10:17










            • Lol at least I could refrain from introducing manifolds, tensors and the cohomology.
              – tobi_s
              Dec 4 at 2:41













            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            Another, more encompassing way to look at integrals is not to look at functions, but introduce a class of objects which can be integrated, called (differential) forms. An example of such forms are $f(x) dx$ and $g(x) dx$. Already based on this little information, we can already derive a number of nice properties: they are linear (because integrals are), we know how they transform under a class of changes of variables (the chain rule): $f(y) dy = f(y(x)) y'(x) dx$ etc. In this way, we can already think of a one-dimensional integral not as an integral of a function (where the integral is $int (cdot) dx$ with a slot for a function) but as an integral of a form (where the integral is $int (cdot)$ with a slot for a form).



            What's interesting about them is their generalization to multivariate calculus. In the simplest case, an integral $int f(x,y) dx dy$ leads to the form $f(x,y)dx dy$, and we would think of differential forms as just a bit of notational hocus-pocus. Their real power comes from the way they deal with variable changes. In multivariate integration, a change of variables is accompanied by the Jacobian, which is a generalization of the derivative term $y'(x)$ in the one-dimensional case. Expressing $x,y$ as functions of a different set of variables $x(u,v),y(u,v)$, the integral transforms as
            $$
            int f(x,y)dxdy = int f(x(u,v),y(u,v)) |J(u,v)| du dv,
            $$

            where
            $$
            |J(u,v)| = left|detleft(left.frac{partial(x,y)}{partial(u,v)}right|_{x=x(u,v),y=y(u,v)}right)right|=left|frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right|
            $$

            is the absolute value of the determinant of the Jacobian matrix. This seems like a complicated prescription, and it is, but we can automate this process by making our forms a tiny bit more powerful: first, we introduce the wedge product (I'm restricting myself to two dimensions for the sake of simplicity) $dxwedge dy$ with the property
            $$
            dxwedge dy = -dywedge dx.
            $$

            This antisymmetry will end up leading to all the right signs for the evaluation of the determinant. Second, we make the $d$ a tiny bit more powerful, by defining its effect on an arbitrary function
            $$
            d f(x,y) = frac{partial f}{partial x}dx + frac{partial f}{partial y}dy,
            $$

            additionally requiring linearity in the obvious way. Third, we define that any integral of a differential form $f,dxwedge dy$ can be evaluated the usual way $int f,dxwedge dy:=int f, dx, dy$ (this defines the sign in particular).



            How is this useful? Let's plug in our previous change of variables, and evaluate $f(u,v)duwedge dv$ which we can think of as shorthand for $f(u(x,y),v(x,y))du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)$. Looking only at the $d$'s we get as a first step
            $$
            du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}dx + frac{partial u}{partial y}dyright)wedgeleft(frac{partial v}{partial x}dx + frac{partial v}{partial y}dyright).
            $$

            Distributing out the parentheses while taking into account that from antisymmetry $dxwedge dx = -dx wedge dx=0$, we get
            $$
            du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=frac{partial u}{partial x}dx wedge frac{partial v}{partial y}dy + frac{partial u}{partial y}dywedge frac{partial v}{partial x}dx.
            $$

            Collecting terms, taking into account that $dywedge dx = -dxwedge dy$, we obtain
            $$du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right) dxwedge dy,
            $$

            where we have recovered the determinant of the Jacobian. In other words, our forms automatically give us the right transformation of the integral (modulo a sign from the missing absolute value, but the meaning of a negative volume is situational anyway). This procedure straightforwardly generalizes to higher dimensions and to spaces that are more complex than $mathbb{R}^n$, always effectuating the correct change of integral measure automatically, and we can write our form in terms of whatever coordinates are most useful.



            Another way how this automatic handling of the change of variables makes life simpler are forms like $fdx + gdy$, taking us back to your original question. We can now leave evaluation as an exercise to the reader :-)



            In this sense it is actually much more natural to think of integrals as operations on differential forms instead of functions.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Another, more encompassing way to look at integrals is not to look at functions, but introduce a class of objects which can be integrated, called (differential) forms. An example of such forms are $f(x) dx$ and $g(x) dx$. Already based on this little information, we can already derive a number of nice properties: they are linear (because integrals are), we know how they transform under a class of changes of variables (the chain rule): $f(y) dy = f(y(x)) y'(x) dx$ etc. In this way, we can already think of a one-dimensional integral not as an integral of a function (where the integral is $int (cdot) dx$ with a slot for a function) but as an integral of a form (where the integral is $int (cdot)$ with a slot for a form).



            What's interesting about them is their generalization to multivariate calculus. In the simplest case, an integral $int f(x,y) dx dy$ leads to the form $f(x,y)dx dy$, and we would think of differential forms as just a bit of notational hocus-pocus. Their real power comes from the way they deal with variable changes. In multivariate integration, a change of variables is accompanied by the Jacobian, which is a generalization of the derivative term $y'(x)$ in the one-dimensional case. Expressing $x,y$ as functions of a different set of variables $x(u,v),y(u,v)$, the integral transforms as
            $$
            int f(x,y)dxdy = int f(x(u,v),y(u,v)) |J(u,v)| du dv,
            $$

            where
            $$
            |J(u,v)| = left|detleft(left.frac{partial(x,y)}{partial(u,v)}right|_{x=x(u,v),y=y(u,v)}right)right|=left|frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right|
            $$

            is the absolute value of the determinant of the Jacobian matrix. This seems like a complicated prescription, and it is, but we can automate this process by making our forms a tiny bit more powerful: first, we introduce the wedge product (I'm restricting myself to two dimensions for the sake of simplicity) $dxwedge dy$ with the property
            $$
            dxwedge dy = -dywedge dx.
            $$

            This antisymmetry will end up leading to all the right signs for the evaluation of the determinant. Second, we make the $d$ a tiny bit more powerful, by defining its effect on an arbitrary function
            $$
            d f(x,y) = frac{partial f}{partial x}dx + frac{partial f}{partial y}dy,
            $$

            additionally requiring linearity in the obvious way. Third, we define that any integral of a differential form $f,dxwedge dy$ can be evaluated the usual way $int f,dxwedge dy:=int f, dx, dy$ (this defines the sign in particular).



            How is this useful? Let's plug in our previous change of variables, and evaluate $f(u,v)duwedge dv$ which we can think of as shorthand for $f(u(x,y),v(x,y))du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)$. Looking only at the $d$'s we get as a first step
            $$
            du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}dx + frac{partial u}{partial y}dyright)wedgeleft(frac{partial v}{partial x}dx + frac{partial v}{partial y}dyright).
            $$

            Distributing out the parentheses while taking into account that from antisymmetry $dxwedge dx = -dx wedge dx=0$, we get
            $$
            du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=frac{partial u}{partial x}dx wedge frac{partial v}{partial y}dy + frac{partial u}{partial y}dywedge frac{partial v}{partial x}dx.
            $$

            Collecting terms, taking into account that $dywedge dx = -dxwedge dy$, we obtain
            $$du(x,y)wedge dv(x,y)=left(frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}right) dxwedge dy,
            $$

            where we have recovered the determinant of the Jacobian. In other words, our forms automatically give us the right transformation of the integral (modulo a sign from the missing absolute value, but the meaning of a negative volume is situational anyway). This procedure straightforwardly generalizes to higher dimensions and to spaces that are more complex than $mathbb{R}^n$, always effectuating the correct change of integral measure automatically, and we can write our form in terms of whatever coordinates are most useful.



            Another way how this automatic handling of the change of variables makes life simpler are forms like $fdx + gdy$, taking us back to your original question. We can now leave evaluation as an exercise to the reader :-)



            In this sense it is actually much more natural to think of integrals as operations on differential forms instead of functions.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 4 at 2:44

























            answered Dec 3 at 2:17









            tobi_s

            1512




            1512












            • Are you trying to drown the OP ? ;-)
              – Yves Daoust
              Dec 3 at 10:17










            • Lol at least I could refrain from introducing manifolds, tensors and the cohomology.
              – tobi_s
              Dec 4 at 2:41


















            • Are you trying to drown the OP ? ;-)
              – Yves Daoust
              Dec 3 at 10:17










            • Lol at least I could refrain from introducing manifolds, tensors and the cohomology.
              – tobi_s
              Dec 4 at 2:41
















            Are you trying to drown the OP ? ;-)
            – Yves Daoust
            Dec 3 at 10:17




            Are you trying to drown the OP ? ;-)
            – Yves Daoust
            Dec 3 at 10:17












            Lol at least I could refrain from introducing manifolds, tensors and the cohomology.
            – tobi_s
            Dec 4 at 2:41




            Lol at least I could refrain from introducing manifolds, tensors and the cohomology.
            – tobi_s
            Dec 4 at 2:41


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022958%2fis-it-possible-to-integrate-something-that-isnt-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

            Aardman Animations

            Are they similar matrix