Double Integral over Trapezium

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












$int int_ A sinleft(fracy-xx+yright)dA$



where $A$ is the trapzeium with vertices $(1,1), (2,2), (2,0), (4,0)$.




I decided to use $u=y-x$ and $v=y+x$ as my variables, and from attempting to change variables I got,



$frac12int_-2^0 int_?^4 sinleft(fracuvright)dvdu$



I'm confused on how to work out the lower? limit for $v$. To work out my previous limits I drew the area, worked out each equation for each line and subbed in $u$ and $v$, but one line was $x=0$, hence the confusion as $u$ and $v$ can't be subbed in here.



Thanks in advance for any tips or help!







share|cite|improve this question






















  • I can't see the trapezium. Maybe one of the points is wrong.
    – Alejandro Nasif Salum
    Aug 12 at 2:18










  • Three of your vertices are colinear... on the $x$ axis??
    – David G. Stork
    Aug 12 at 2:18











  • Ah sorry, I meant to put (1,1), edited now.
    – Brad Scott
    Aug 12 at 2:30










  • Split the trapezium into two triangles along the vertical at x=2. This should make the integration end points easier when you change variables..
    – herb steinberg
    Aug 12 at 3:41














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












$int int_ A sinleft(fracy-xx+yright)dA$



where $A$ is the trapzeium with vertices $(1,1), (2,2), (2,0), (4,0)$.




I decided to use $u=y-x$ and $v=y+x$ as my variables, and from attempting to change variables I got,



$frac12int_-2^0 int_?^4 sinleft(fracuvright)dvdu$



I'm confused on how to work out the lower? limit for $v$. To work out my previous limits I drew the area, worked out each equation for each line and subbed in $u$ and $v$, but one line was $x=0$, hence the confusion as $u$ and $v$ can't be subbed in here.



Thanks in advance for any tips or help!







share|cite|improve this question






















  • I can't see the trapezium. Maybe one of the points is wrong.
    – Alejandro Nasif Salum
    Aug 12 at 2:18










  • Three of your vertices are colinear... on the $x$ axis??
    – David G. Stork
    Aug 12 at 2:18











  • Ah sorry, I meant to put (1,1), edited now.
    – Brad Scott
    Aug 12 at 2:30










  • Split the trapezium into two triangles along the vertical at x=2. This should make the integration end points easier when you change variables..
    – herb steinberg
    Aug 12 at 3:41












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











$int int_ A sinleft(fracy-xx+yright)dA$



where $A$ is the trapzeium with vertices $(1,1), (2,2), (2,0), (4,0)$.




I decided to use $u=y-x$ and $v=y+x$ as my variables, and from attempting to change variables I got,



$frac12int_-2^0 int_?^4 sinleft(fracuvright)dvdu$



I'm confused on how to work out the lower? limit for $v$. To work out my previous limits I drew the area, worked out each equation for each line and subbed in $u$ and $v$, but one line was $x=0$, hence the confusion as $u$ and $v$ can't be subbed in here.



Thanks in advance for any tips or help!







share|cite|improve this question














$int int_ A sinleft(fracy-xx+yright)dA$



where $A$ is the trapzeium with vertices $(1,1), (2,2), (2,0), (4,0)$.




I decided to use $u=y-x$ and $v=y+x$ as my variables, and from attempting to change variables I got,



$frac12int_-2^0 int_?^4 sinleft(fracuvright)dvdu$



I'm confused on how to work out the lower? limit for $v$. To work out my previous limits I drew the area, worked out each equation for each line and subbed in $u$ and $v$, but one line was $x=0$, hence the confusion as $u$ and $v$ can't be subbed in here.



Thanks in advance for any tips or help!









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 12 at 14:28

























asked Aug 12 at 1:54









Brad Scott

885




885











  • I can't see the trapezium. Maybe one of the points is wrong.
    – Alejandro Nasif Salum
    Aug 12 at 2:18










  • Three of your vertices are colinear... on the $x$ axis??
    – David G. Stork
    Aug 12 at 2:18











  • Ah sorry, I meant to put (1,1), edited now.
    – Brad Scott
    Aug 12 at 2:30










  • Split the trapezium into two triangles along the vertical at x=2. This should make the integration end points easier when you change variables..
    – herb steinberg
    Aug 12 at 3:41
















  • I can't see the trapezium. Maybe one of the points is wrong.
    – Alejandro Nasif Salum
    Aug 12 at 2:18










  • Three of your vertices are colinear... on the $x$ axis??
    – David G. Stork
    Aug 12 at 2:18











  • Ah sorry, I meant to put (1,1), edited now.
    – Brad Scott
    Aug 12 at 2:30










  • Split the trapezium into two triangles along the vertical at x=2. This should make the integration end points easier when you change variables..
    – herb steinberg
    Aug 12 at 3:41















I can't see the trapezium. Maybe one of the points is wrong.
– Alejandro Nasif Salum
Aug 12 at 2:18




I can't see the trapezium. Maybe one of the points is wrong.
– Alejandro Nasif Salum
Aug 12 at 2:18












Three of your vertices are colinear... on the $x$ axis??
– David G. Stork
Aug 12 at 2:18





Three of your vertices are colinear... on the $x$ axis??
– David G. Stork
Aug 12 at 2:18













Ah sorry, I meant to put (1,1), edited now.
– Brad Scott
Aug 12 at 2:30




Ah sorry, I meant to put (1,1), edited now.
– Brad Scott
Aug 12 at 2:30












Split the trapezium into two triangles along the vertical at x=2. This should make the integration end points easier when you change variables..
– herb steinberg
Aug 12 at 3:41




Split the trapezium into two triangles along the vertical at x=2. This should make the integration end points easier when you change variables..
– herb steinberg
Aug 12 at 3:41










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










You've chosen to put $u$ as the last variable to integrate. This is not how I would personally go about it, but let's continue.



Let's transform these points in terms of $u$ and $v$. Our points become
$$(u, v) = (0, 2), (0, 4), (-4, 4), (-2, 2).$$
Plot these on the $u$-$v$ plane. Note that $u$ ranges not from $-2$ to $0$, but $-4$ to $0$. The upper bound for $v$ is indeed $4$, but the lower bound is made up of two line segments, which have a cusp at $u = -2$. So, we should probably split the domain up.



For $u$ between $-4$ and $-2$, the lower bound follows the line $v = -u$. For $u$ between $-2$ and $0$, the line is $v = 0$. So, our integral is split like so:



$$iint_A = int_-4^-2 int_-u^4 + int_-2^0 int_0^4.$$



If you instead put $v$ on the outside, you get something a lot nicer:



$$int_2^4 int_-v^0$$



Don't forget the Jacobean too!






share|cite|improve this answer




















    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: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    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%2f2879906%2fdouble-integral-over-trapezium%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    You've chosen to put $u$ as the last variable to integrate. This is not how I would personally go about it, but let's continue.



    Let's transform these points in terms of $u$ and $v$. Our points become
    $$(u, v) = (0, 2), (0, 4), (-4, 4), (-2, 2).$$
    Plot these on the $u$-$v$ plane. Note that $u$ ranges not from $-2$ to $0$, but $-4$ to $0$. The upper bound for $v$ is indeed $4$, but the lower bound is made up of two line segments, which have a cusp at $u = -2$. So, we should probably split the domain up.



    For $u$ between $-4$ and $-2$, the lower bound follows the line $v = -u$. For $u$ between $-2$ and $0$, the line is $v = 0$. So, our integral is split like so:



    $$iint_A = int_-4^-2 int_-u^4 + int_-2^0 int_0^4.$$



    If you instead put $v$ on the outside, you get something a lot nicer:



    $$int_2^4 int_-v^0$$



    Don't forget the Jacobean too!






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      You've chosen to put $u$ as the last variable to integrate. This is not how I would personally go about it, but let's continue.



      Let's transform these points in terms of $u$ and $v$. Our points become
      $$(u, v) = (0, 2), (0, 4), (-4, 4), (-2, 2).$$
      Plot these on the $u$-$v$ plane. Note that $u$ ranges not from $-2$ to $0$, but $-4$ to $0$. The upper bound for $v$ is indeed $4$, but the lower bound is made up of two line segments, which have a cusp at $u = -2$. So, we should probably split the domain up.



      For $u$ between $-4$ and $-2$, the lower bound follows the line $v = -u$. For $u$ between $-2$ and $0$, the line is $v = 0$. So, our integral is split like so:



      $$iint_A = int_-4^-2 int_-u^4 + int_-2^0 int_0^4.$$



      If you instead put $v$ on the outside, you get something a lot nicer:



      $$int_2^4 int_-v^0$$



      Don't forget the Jacobean too!






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted






        You've chosen to put $u$ as the last variable to integrate. This is not how I would personally go about it, but let's continue.



        Let's transform these points in terms of $u$ and $v$. Our points become
        $$(u, v) = (0, 2), (0, 4), (-4, 4), (-2, 2).$$
        Plot these on the $u$-$v$ plane. Note that $u$ ranges not from $-2$ to $0$, but $-4$ to $0$. The upper bound for $v$ is indeed $4$, but the lower bound is made up of two line segments, which have a cusp at $u = -2$. So, we should probably split the domain up.



        For $u$ between $-4$ and $-2$, the lower bound follows the line $v = -u$. For $u$ between $-2$ and $0$, the line is $v = 0$. So, our integral is split like so:



        $$iint_A = int_-4^-2 int_-u^4 + int_-2^0 int_0^4.$$



        If you instead put $v$ on the outside, you get something a lot nicer:



        $$int_2^4 int_-v^0$$



        Don't forget the Jacobean too!






        share|cite|improve this answer












        You've chosen to put $u$ as the last variable to integrate. This is not how I would personally go about it, but let's continue.



        Let's transform these points in terms of $u$ and $v$. Our points become
        $$(u, v) = (0, 2), (0, 4), (-4, 4), (-2, 2).$$
        Plot these on the $u$-$v$ plane. Note that $u$ ranges not from $-2$ to $0$, but $-4$ to $0$. The upper bound for $v$ is indeed $4$, but the lower bound is made up of two line segments, which have a cusp at $u = -2$. So, we should probably split the domain up.



        For $u$ between $-4$ and $-2$, the lower bound follows the line $v = -u$. For $u$ between $-2$ and $0$, the line is $v = 0$. So, our integral is split like so:



        $$iint_A = int_-4^-2 int_-u^4 + int_-2^0 int_0^4.$$



        If you instead put $v$ on the outside, you get something a lot nicer:



        $$int_2^4 int_-v^0$$



        Don't forget the Jacobean too!







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Aug 12 at 4:04









        Theo Bendit

        12.2k1844




        12.2k1844






















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


























             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2879906%2fdouble-integral-over-trapezium%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Carbon dioxide

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?