Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In a paper I am reading, I have come across the following formula:

$$\int_\omega f\, \partial \Omega$$

in which $\Omega$ is a bounded region in $\mathbb{R}^n$, $f:\Omega \to \mathbb{R}$ a function, and $\omega \subset \Omega$.

What is the meaning of $\partial \Omega$ in the integral? Is this standard notation?

EDIT:

I am not actually so much interested in the concrete problem in which the above formula occurs. I just did not understand the use of the "curvy delta" symbol in the integrand, and presumed it would be some kind of standard notation I did not know. FWIW, here is a link to the paper, the formula in question is number (4) on page 268.

share|improve this question
1  
$\partial\Omega$ is inside the integral not under the integral. Under the integral is $\omega$ –  user9413 Jul 4 '11 at 18:44
    
OK changed that... should be clear now. –  koletenbert Jul 4 '11 at 18:48
    
Do you have a reference? Maybe it is clearer in context. At least, can you say what topic/subject the paper is about? –  Willie Wong Jul 4 '11 at 18:54
1  
I believe it was correct before you exchanged $\partial\Omega$ and $\omega$, could you please show us how it looked before? –  leftaroundabout Jul 4 '11 at 19:50
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

If you compare the paragraph before Equation (5) in that paper, which states that for a function $\phi$ such that $\phi$ is positive on $\omega$ and negative outside $\omega$, you have

$$ \int_{\omega} \partial\Omega = \int_{\Omega} H(\phi) dx $$

where $H(\cdot)$ is the Heaviside function, one may infer that by $\partial\Omega$ the authors meant to express some sort of induced volume element on $\omega\subset \Omega$.

But this certainly is not mainstream/standard notation; I for one have never seen its like before.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Assuming what you originally had was $$ \int_{\partial\Omega}f\,\omega $$ this means simply: integrate $f\omega$ over the boundary of $\Omega$.

$\omega$ is a differential form here, an $n-1$-form if $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$. It can then be written as $$ \omega = \omega_1\cdot\mathrm{d}x_2\wedge\ldots\wedge\mathrm{d}x_n + \omega_2\cdot\mathrm{d}x_1\wedge\mathrm{d}x_3\wedge\ldots\wedge\mathrm{d}x_n + \ldots\ldots $$ where the $\omega_i$ are functions $\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$ (as $f$ also is). (Of course, you could swap the meaning of $\omega$ and $f$, but this is the more common variant.)

As a simple example, let $\Omega$ be the unit square in $\mathbb{R}^2$. Then, $\omega$ is a 1-form, let it be simply $$ \omega := \mathrm{d}x. $$ Let furthermore $$ f(x,y) := x\cdot y $$ then your integral is simply $$ \int_{\partial\Omega}f\omega = \int_{\partial\Omega}xy\;\mathrm{d}x $$ We yet have to figure out what $\partial\Omega$ is, but in this case it's simply a path consisting of four straight segments, two in $x$- and two in $y$-direction. As it is an integral over $\mathrm{d}x$, we only need the parts in $x$-direction, for one of these, $y=0$, for the other $y=1$. So $$ \int_{\partial\Omega}f\omega = \int\limits_0^1x\cdot 0\;\mathrm{d}x + \int\limits_0^1x\cdot 1\;\mathrm{d}x = \frac12. $$

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your effort... it makes total sense, however the formula given in the paper actually is $\int_\omega f\, \partial \Omega$. My original edit (as related in the comment above) was just to change the phrasing "under the integral" to "in the integral". I will now add some more context to the original question. –  koletenbert Jul 4 '11 at 22:10
    
This is really strange, especially since $\Omega$ is widespreadly used for integration domains as well as $\omega$ is for differential forms. $\int_\omega f\partial\Omega$ really does not make any sense then, and I have no idea what else it could mean. Without having looked it up in the paper, I'm inclined to think there has just been an editing error, but I could be completely wrong. –  leftaroundabout Jul 4 '11 at 23:22
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.