36
$\begingroup$

From reading answers here, I've noticed that some people write integrals as $\int dx \; f(x)$, while other people write them as $\int f(x)\;dx$.

I realize that there is no mathematical difference between the two notation forms, but was wondering why some people choose the first method over the second. Is there some place in higher maths that it becomes beneficial to write the differential first?

(I, personally, have always used the second method, just because I was taught that way...)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For the first time, I saw this way of using notation in @Ron Gordon's neat answers. I asked him. He noted that, it was used in Optic problems. :-) $\endgroup$ – mrs May 10 '13 at 13:29
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You all have given great answers before I could chime in - and thank you @BabakS.! It makes me feel great that there are great answers to this question that are not mine. If I had a dollar (rupee, pound, ruble, euro) for every time I answered this on M.SE, I'd be able to quit my job and really spend some serious time on M.SE. $\endgroup$ – Ron Gordon May 10 '13 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Ron Gordon - Link 'em to a previous answer? Or this? P: $\endgroup$ – Sharkos May 10 '13 at 13:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GEdgar my post isn't meant to complain... but simply seeking understanding on why certain people write it that way. I'm always looking for ways to improve my own math ability, including ways to reduce mistakes; if writing differentials that way serves as a reminder to prevent mistakes (especially in higher math, as it's easier to mess up the more complex problems get), then I would certainly try that style. $\endgroup$ – apnorton May 10 '13 at 15:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GEdgar: well, you didn't have to bold the "higher maths" bit to stress my mathematical inferiority ;-) Seriously, I do think about diff forms, etc., and I don't use this notation in those cases in which it makes no sense. $\endgroup$ – Ron Gordon May 10 '13 at 21:55
34
$\begingroup$

When you have a lot of integrals, particularly with limits, it can be very helpful at times to be able to tell at a glance which integral is over which variable.

$$\int_0^1 \int_2^3 f(x,y) \; \mathrm d x \mathrm d y$$

This is not particularly readable or clear, especially when $f$ is lengthy and there are more nested integrals etc. I could also imagine it being misinterpreted.

By contrast,

$$\int_0^1\mathrm d y \int_2^3 \mathrm d x \; f(x,y)$$

makes it very clear what is going on. The only price you pay is possible ambiguity about where the integral ends, but this is easier to make clear with formatting and less of an issue anyway.


Edit: It also just occurred to me that the second notation ties in better with the syntax of an operator. That is, if one thinks of $\int_0^1 \mathrm d x$ as being an operator, taking a function to its integral, it's more natural to have the whole operator together in one lump. Think of how one changes $$\frac {\partial f}{\partial x}\to \frac{\partial}{\partial x} f$$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (+1) There is no ambiguity so long as you provide consistent notation all along - i.e., you don't use variables of integration outside the integral, etc. $\endgroup$ – Ron Gordon May 10 '13 at 13:40
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This ambiguity isn't mathematical but in human reading - it might make it harder to parse the above if one doesn't initially spot the $y$ lurking deep within $f$, as one might assume the $y$ integral factorized off, as the notation is suggestive. Similarly if one just wrote $f$ with no arguments. As I say, it's less of an issue though! $\endgroup$ – Sharkos May 10 '13 at 13:46
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ BTW bullseye for the operator observation. This is very much used in Physics, ESP quantum mechanics and, yes, optics. $\endgroup$ – Ron Gordon May 10 '13 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ ESP? Einstein(?) Schrödinger Picture? Please not Extra-Sensory Perception...! $\endgroup$ – Sharkos May 10 '13 at 22:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Good god, I swear that iOS put that there. Yes, we telepaths use this notation too. $\endgroup$ – Ron Gordon May 10 '13 at 22:16
5
$\begingroup$

In my opinion, the symbol $\int \mathrm{d}x\, f(x)$ is simply bad notation. On the contrary, when dealing with (at least) double integrals, the advantage of $$\int_{a}^b \mathrm{d}x \int_{c}^{d} \mathrm{d}y\, f(x,y)$$ is that it perfectly fits into the stategy of Fubini's theorem. Imagine that you are computing a double integral: you say "Ok, now I fix the $x$ variable and integrate with respect to the $y$ variable." It is natural to write down $x$ first.

This said, I think that $$\int_{a}^{b} \left( \int_{c}^{d} f(x,y)\, \mathrm{d}y \right) \mathrm{d}x$$ should be used in printed papers and books.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ No, I think it is bad. It is misleading, first of all. $\endgroup$ – Siminore May 10 '13 at 14:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You haven't explained why it's "bad" or "misleading". I'm curious why you feel this. $\endgroup$ – Sharkos May 10 '13 at 15:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Because another popular notation is $\int_\Omega d\mu = \int_\Omega \chi_\Omega \, d\mu=\mu(\Omega)$, so that $\int_a^b dx = b-a$. $\endgroup$ – Siminore May 11 '13 at 10:28
  • 21
    $\begingroup$ If I write $\int_a^b dx \int_c^d f(x,y)\, dy$, I might understand $(b-a) \int_c^d f(x,y)\, dy$... $\endgroup$ – Siminore May 14 '13 at 16:55
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Late comment: the product-of-integrals interpretation of that expression would mean that $x$ appears outside of the integral in which $x$ is being integrated. $\endgroup$ – anon Aug 19 '13 at 12:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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