|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-priority)|
Please, help to finish this page. Miraceti 00:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Typo in TeX
I thought volume integral meant an integral with respect to volume. Michael Hardy 22:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Me too. But, the article has a link to Mathworld, where they define it as it was in the version you reverted. I would be inclined to think the Mathworld article is wrong. Oleg Alexandrov 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
V represents the closed region which the--Maciel 12:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) volume would be calculated, F(x,y,z) doesn't represent a volume. F(x,y,z) maps the region V in R^3 into R^4. If f(x,y,z) = 1, then the integral is volume of V. take single variable integral Integral(f(x)) on interval [a,b] for example, [a,b] is a region in R^1, f(x) maps the region [a,b] into R^2, the integral represents the area under f(x) in R^2. If you set f(x) = 1, then you get b-a, it's the magnitude of [a,b].
- Dear 184.108.40.206. Would you please make yourself an account? You can't always pop in and out using different IP address if you want to do something useful in here. If you make an account, you will have your own talk page, your stable watchlist, and life will be so much easier for you and for us, people who interact with you. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 17:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The explanation of the different uses of the term "volume integral" is rather poor, being the two supposedly different examples equivalent. Both represent the integral of a function in a certain domain. While in the first example the function is a constant scalar function, in the second example we are dealing with a more generalized representation. Still, both represent the same concept without any differences between them.
The reference to the divergence theorem is redundant, regarding wikipedia as a whole. A simple reference to the wikipedia's article on that subject is not only more than enough, it also gives the reader a more indepth look at the subject. --Maciel 12:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with lots of the things you said. We had Chubby (see the history) who was adding all this stuff. However, I would like to say that you cut a bit too much. Can I challenge you to put some stuff back which would indeed illustrate what this article is about? A dry definition does not really do the job well. Oleg Alexandrov 17:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
triple integral of f(x,y,z) does not give volume, unless you generalize volume to R^n
The above is what an anon stated.
You see, you still believe volume integral is the integral of 1. Then, of course, the triple integral of a function f(x, y, z) is nothing but the integral in the region under the graph of w=f(x, y, z) in R4.
Please write here any comments. Reverting back and forth is not the way to go. Oleg Alexandrov 16:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- No serious literature would mix volume integral with triple integral. (written, but usigned, by Chubby)
You are going to have a hard time proving that. :) Oleg Alexandrov 03:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Also, please sign your comments, use four tildas, like this ~~~~. Oleg Alexandrov 03:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello. Gooba has removed the "Volume integral in different coordinates" section (see history), which is fair enough as it probably doesn't belong here (in fact, I should really have asked here first ;-). However, I feel that this information should be provided somewhere in wikipedia, as that's what I wanted to know when I first searched for this page. I also searched in a few other places, like volume element and the coordiate systems page, but none have this information. If it is already provided, then can someone say where or put a link in somewhere. Sorry if that sounds like i'm having a rant, it's not supposed to be :-) h2g2bob H2g2bob 17:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How about making a volume integral in different coordinates article,and linking to it from here and other places? Oleg Alexandrov 21:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is so "suspicious" about the following:
It is true. Perhaps it should be reworded. Who has an idea of what how it should be better presented?
-- Lindberg 06:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a reminder that the scalar product of three vectors is fully antisymmetric. (See, for example, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ScalarTripleProduct.html). Also, a reference to Jacobian matrix and determinant couldn't hurt. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Collin237