Intuition Wanted: Why Define Integrals Component-Wise












12














In our analysis course, we just defined the following:




Let $g := (g_1, ldots, g_n): [a, b] to mathbb{R}^n$, where $g_1, ldots, g_n: [a,b] to mathbb{R}$ are integrable.
Then we call the integral of $g$ over $[a,b]$
begin{equation*}
int_{a}^{b} g(t) dt
:= begin{pmatrix}
int_{a}^{b} g_1(t) dt \ vdots \ int_{a}^{b} g_n(t) dt
end{pmatrix}.
end{equation*}




I came across this definition again at the beginning of measure theory, when we stated:




We ultimately want to integration functions $mathbb{R}^n to mathbb{R}^m$, but because of the above definition we can, without loss of generality, restrict ourselves to the case $m = 1$.




My Question
What is the intuition behind this definition, why does it make sense, if you will, ''on a deeper level''










share|cite|improve this question





























    12














    In our analysis course, we just defined the following:




    Let $g := (g_1, ldots, g_n): [a, b] to mathbb{R}^n$, where $g_1, ldots, g_n: [a,b] to mathbb{R}$ are integrable.
    Then we call the integral of $g$ over $[a,b]$
    begin{equation*}
    int_{a}^{b} g(t) dt
    := begin{pmatrix}
    int_{a}^{b} g_1(t) dt \ vdots \ int_{a}^{b} g_n(t) dt
    end{pmatrix}.
    end{equation*}




    I came across this definition again at the beginning of measure theory, when we stated:




    We ultimately want to integration functions $mathbb{R}^n to mathbb{R}^m$, but because of the above definition we can, without loss of generality, restrict ourselves to the case $m = 1$.




    My Question
    What is the intuition behind this definition, why does it make sense, if you will, ''on a deeper level''










    share|cite|improve this question



























      12












      12








      12


      2





      In our analysis course, we just defined the following:




      Let $g := (g_1, ldots, g_n): [a, b] to mathbb{R}^n$, where $g_1, ldots, g_n: [a,b] to mathbb{R}$ are integrable.
      Then we call the integral of $g$ over $[a,b]$
      begin{equation*}
      int_{a}^{b} g(t) dt
      := begin{pmatrix}
      int_{a}^{b} g_1(t) dt \ vdots \ int_{a}^{b} g_n(t) dt
      end{pmatrix}.
      end{equation*}




      I came across this definition again at the beginning of measure theory, when we stated:




      We ultimately want to integration functions $mathbb{R}^n to mathbb{R}^m$, but because of the above definition we can, without loss of generality, restrict ourselves to the case $m = 1$.




      My Question
      What is the intuition behind this definition, why does it make sense, if you will, ''on a deeper level''










      share|cite|improve this question















      In our analysis course, we just defined the following:




      Let $g := (g_1, ldots, g_n): [a, b] to mathbb{R}^n$, where $g_1, ldots, g_n: [a,b] to mathbb{R}$ are integrable.
      Then we call the integral of $g$ over $[a,b]$
      begin{equation*}
      int_{a}^{b} g(t) dt
      := begin{pmatrix}
      int_{a}^{b} g_1(t) dt \ vdots \ int_{a}^{b} g_n(t) dt
      end{pmatrix}.
      end{equation*}




      I came across this definition again at the beginning of measure theory, when we stated:




      We ultimately want to integration functions $mathbb{R}^n to mathbb{R}^m$, but because of the above definition we can, without loss of generality, restrict ourselves to the case $m = 1$.




      My Question
      What is the intuition behind this definition, why does it make sense, if you will, ''on a deeper level''







      integration measure-theory intuition big-picture






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 21 at 19:05

























      asked Dec 20 at 21:16









      Viktor Glombik

      573425




      573425






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          23














          The Riemann Integral, say, is based on sums. The sums of vectors are defined component-wise. And different norms on $mathbb R$ are topologically equivalent. Therefore, this is the exact thing you would end up with anyway for Riemann integrals if you defined them by analogy instead of component-wise explicitly.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I think some of the confusion came from me always thinking of the integral as a functional mapping functions to numbers, but here we get a vector, which suddenly isn't intuitive as a measure.
            – Viktor Glombik
            Dec 21 at 19:26






          • 1




            @Viktor Depending on your interests, you might be able to bring things down to earth by examining a physical integral that results in a vector, like the Biot-Savart law.
            – Mark S.
            Dec 21 at 19:36










          • One thing to consider any time you define something component-wise is whether change of basis respects it. In this case, one might want to check that taking the integral and then changing bases results in the same answer as changing bases and then taking the integral.
            – Acccumulation
            Dec 21 at 21:32



















          26














          Addition, subtraction, scalar multiplication, scalar division, limits, and differentiation all act component-wise on vectors. You would need a good reason to make integration inconsistent with those!



          For the "deeper level": However we define integration of vectors, we want it to be:




          1. Linear, $int(a+b)=int a+int b$

          2. Covariant with vector space isomorphisms, $int T f=Tint f$.

          3. Consistent with the usual embedding of $mathbb R$ in $mathbb R^n$, $int (f, 0, 0, ldots)=(int f, 0, 0, ldots)$.


          These axioms force it to act component-wise.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            6














            On a much more general level, considering sets, mapping into a product $f:Ato Btimes C$ is essentially really just two mapping $f_B:Ato B$ and $f_C:Ato C$. Similarly, mapping out of a disjoint union of sets is just two functions. This extends to products of more than two things and in particular to functions to $mathbb R^n$. This phenomenon justifies the reduction you mention. It is a categorical observation valid in many different contexts.






            share|cite|improve this answer





























              3














              Perhaps I'm missing the point of your quest for intuition, but we wish to define integrals component-wise because each component "should be independent" from one another. Having $mathbb{R}$ as a codomain is really special; when you try to move towards $mathbb{R}^m$ you lose the ability to totally order things in a natural way, and then all of your geometric intuition about signed areas and things being "under" curves flies out the window.



              So how could you get around this? Well I'm not going to say there is not some extremely clever and brilliant definition lurking out there, but why not just pull apart your codomain until each piece looks like stuff you are used to? Why reinvent the wheel when it comes to interpretations of what the sums of strange hyeprvolumes are when we can simply iterate what we already know on multiple dimensions? And going back to my earlier comment, what possible other definition can we come up with that is compatible with our intution for the case of $m=1$?






              share|cite|improve this answer








              New contributor




              DeficientMathDude is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.














              • 1




                Why reinvent the wheel? Because when you integrate functions with values in infinite-dimensional spaces (e.g., values in a Banach space that is infinite-dimensional) there are no natural coordinates at all. Conceptually, the definition of integration of functions with values in a normed vector space should not involve coordinates in the definition, but instead prove that as a theorem. In introductory courses, using coordinatewise integration as a definition of integration of functions with values in $mathbf R^n$ is concrete. But for later generalizations, this approach is not good.
                – KCd
                Dec 22 at 4:14





















              1














              The idea of component-wise integrals has a concrete geometrical meaning: to decompose a function curve by projecting it onto planes, then to take the (signed) areas of these projections in their respective planes.



              For example, let's take a look at a function v(t)=(x(t),y(t)). In the picture below, the two components of the integral of v are the area of the red curve in its horizontal plane and the area of the yellow curve in its vertical plane.



              projections of the curve of v on two planes



              Another way to define the integral of v would be to take the integral of the norms ||g(t)||, but I guess component-wise integrals have more respect for structure and thus have nicer algebraic properties.



              We can also look at a physical interpretation, to make this even more concrete. In the above, interpret t as time, and v(t) as the velocity of an object O moving within some plane, so that x(t) is its horizontal velocity and y(t) is its vertical velocity, at any instant t. Then the integral of x is the horizontal distance traveled by O, and the integral of y is the vertical distance traveled by O, so that the component-wise integral of v is the 2D distance traveled by O. So with component-wise integrals, the integral of velocity remains the distance, even in multidimensional situations.



              (Illustration produced thanks to Octave and this script.)






              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',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                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%2f3047976%2fintuition-wanted-why-define-integrals-component-wise%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes








                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                23














                The Riemann Integral, say, is based on sums. The sums of vectors are defined component-wise. And different norms on $mathbb R$ are topologically equivalent. Therefore, this is the exact thing you would end up with anyway for Riemann integrals if you defined them by analogy instead of component-wise explicitly.






                share|cite|improve this answer





















                • I think some of the confusion came from me always thinking of the integral as a functional mapping functions to numbers, but here we get a vector, which suddenly isn't intuitive as a measure.
                  – Viktor Glombik
                  Dec 21 at 19:26






                • 1




                  @Viktor Depending on your interests, you might be able to bring things down to earth by examining a physical integral that results in a vector, like the Biot-Savart law.
                  – Mark S.
                  Dec 21 at 19:36










                • One thing to consider any time you define something component-wise is whether change of basis respects it. In this case, one might want to check that taking the integral and then changing bases results in the same answer as changing bases and then taking the integral.
                  – Acccumulation
                  Dec 21 at 21:32
















                23














                The Riemann Integral, say, is based on sums. The sums of vectors are defined component-wise. And different norms on $mathbb R$ are topologically equivalent. Therefore, this is the exact thing you would end up with anyway for Riemann integrals if you defined them by analogy instead of component-wise explicitly.






                share|cite|improve this answer





















                • I think some of the confusion came from me always thinking of the integral as a functional mapping functions to numbers, but here we get a vector, which suddenly isn't intuitive as a measure.
                  – Viktor Glombik
                  Dec 21 at 19:26






                • 1




                  @Viktor Depending on your interests, you might be able to bring things down to earth by examining a physical integral that results in a vector, like the Biot-Savart law.
                  – Mark S.
                  Dec 21 at 19:36










                • One thing to consider any time you define something component-wise is whether change of basis respects it. In this case, one might want to check that taking the integral and then changing bases results in the same answer as changing bases and then taking the integral.
                  – Acccumulation
                  Dec 21 at 21:32














                23












                23








                23






                The Riemann Integral, say, is based on sums. The sums of vectors are defined component-wise. And different norms on $mathbb R$ are topologically equivalent. Therefore, this is the exact thing you would end up with anyway for Riemann integrals if you defined them by analogy instead of component-wise explicitly.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                The Riemann Integral, say, is based on sums. The sums of vectors are defined component-wise. And different norms on $mathbb R$ are topologically equivalent. Therefore, this is the exact thing you would end up with anyway for Riemann integrals if you defined them by analogy instead of component-wise explicitly.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 20 at 21:25









                Mark S.

                11.7k22669




                11.7k22669












                • I think some of the confusion came from me always thinking of the integral as a functional mapping functions to numbers, but here we get a vector, which suddenly isn't intuitive as a measure.
                  – Viktor Glombik
                  Dec 21 at 19:26






                • 1




                  @Viktor Depending on your interests, you might be able to bring things down to earth by examining a physical integral that results in a vector, like the Biot-Savart law.
                  – Mark S.
                  Dec 21 at 19:36










                • One thing to consider any time you define something component-wise is whether change of basis respects it. In this case, one might want to check that taking the integral and then changing bases results in the same answer as changing bases and then taking the integral.
                  – Acccumulation
                  Dec 21 at 21:32


















                • I think some of the confusion came from me always thinking of the integral as a functional mapping functions to numbers, but here we get a vector, which suddenly isn't intuitive as a measure.
                  – Viktor Glombik
                  Dec 21 at 19:26






                • 1




                  @Viktor Depending on your interests, you might be able to bring things down to earth by examining a physical integral that results in a vector, like the Biot-Savart law.
                  – Mark S.
                  Dec 21 at 19:36










                • One thing to consider any time you define something component-wise is whether change of basis respects it. In this case, one might want to check that taking the integral and then changing bases results in the same answer as changing bases and then taking the integral.
                  – Acccumulation
                  Dec 21 at 21:32
















                I think some of the confusion came from me always thinking of the integral as a functional mapping functions to numbers, but here we get a vector, which suddenly isn't intuitive as a measure.
                – Viktor Glombik
                Dec 21 at 19:26




                I think some of the confusion came from me always thinking of the integral as a functional mapping functions to numbers, but here we get a vector, which suddenly isn't intuitive as a measure.
                – Viktor Glombik
                Dec 21 at 19:26




                1




                1




                @Viktor Depending on your interests, you might be able to bring things down to earth by examining a physical integral that results in a vector, like the Biot-Savart law.
                – Mark S.
                Dec 21 at 19:36




                @Viktor Depending on your interests, you might be able to bring things down to earth by examining a physical integral that results in a vector, like the Biot-Savart law.
                – Mark S.
                Dec 21 at 19:36












                One thing to consider any time you define something component-wise is whether change of basis respects it. In this case, one might want to check that taking the integral and then changing bases results in the same answer as changing bases and then taking the integral.
                – Acccumulation
                Dec 21 at 21:32




                One thing to consider any time you define something component-wise is whether change of basis respects it. In this case, one might want to check that taking the integral and then changing bases results in the same answer as changing bases and then taking the integral.
                – Acccumulation
                Dec 21 at 21:32











                26














                Addition, subtraction, scalar multiplication, scalar division, limits, and differentiation all act component-wise on vectors. You would need a good reason to make integration inconsistent with those!



                For the "deeper level": However we define integration of vectors, we want it to be:




                1. Linear, $int(a+b)=int a+int b$

                2. Covariant with vector space isomorphisms, $int T f=Tint f$.

                3. Consistent with the usual embedding of $mathbb R$ in $mathbb R^n$, $int (f, 0, 0, ldots)=(int f, 0, 0, ldots)$.


                These axioms force it to act component-wise.






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  26














                  Addition, subtraction, scalar multiplication, scalar division, limits, and differentiation all act component-wise on vectors. You would need a good reason to make integration inconsistent with those!



                  For the "deeper level": However we define integration of vectors, we want it to be:




                  1. Linear, $int(a+b)=int a+int b$

                  2. Covariant with vector space isomorphisms, $int T f=Tint f$.

                  3. Consistent with the usual embedding of $mathbb R$ in $mathbb R^n$, $int (f, 0, 0, ldots)=(int f, 0, 0, ldots)$.


                  These axioms force it to act component-wise.






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    26












                    26








                    26






                    Addition, subtraction, scalar multiplication, scalar division, limits, and differentiation all act component-wise on vectors. You would need a good reason to make integration inconsistent with those!



                    For the "deeper level": However we define integration of vectors, we want it to be:




                    1. Linear, $int(a+b)=int a+int b$

                    2. Covariant with vector space isomorphisms, $int T f=Tint f$.

                    3. Consistent with the usual embedding of $mathbb R$ in $mathbb R^n$, $int (f, 0, 0, ldots)=(int f, 0, 0, ldots)$.


                    These axioms force it to act component-wise.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    Addition, subtraction, scalar multiplication, scalar division, limits, and differentiation all act component-wise on vectors. You would need a good reason to make integration inconsistent with those!



                    For the "deeper level": However we define integration of vectors, we want it to be:




                    1. Linear, $int(a+b)=int a+int b$

                    2. Covariant with vector space isomorphisms, $int T f=Tint f$.

                    3. Consistent with the usual embedding of $mathbb R$ in $mathbb R^n$, $int (f, 0, 0, ldots)=(int f, 0, 0, ldots)$.


                    These axioms force it to act component-wise.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Dec 20 at 21:38









                    Chris Culter

                    20k43482




                    20k43482























                        6














                        On a much more general level, considering sets, mapping into a product $f:Ato Btimes C$ is essentially really just two mapping $f_B:Ato B$ and $f_C:Ato C$. Similarly, mapping out of a disjoint union of sets is just two functions. This extends to products of more than two things and in particular to functions to $mathbb R^n$. This phenomenon justifies the reduction you mention. It is a categorical observation valid in many different contexts.






                        share|cite|improve this answer


























                          6














                          On a much more general level, considering sets, mapping into a product $f:Ato Btimes C$ is essentially really just two mapping $f_B:Ato B$ and $f_C:Ato C$. Similarly, mapping out of a disjoint union of sets is just two functions. This extends to products of more than two things and in particular to functions to $mathbb R^n$. This phenomenon justifies the reduction you mention. It is a categorical observation valid in many different contexts.






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            6












                            6








                            6






                            On a much more general level, considering sets, mapping into a product $f:Ato Btimes C$ is essentially really just two mapping $f_B:Ato B$ and $f_C:Ato C$. Similarly, mapping out of a disjoint union of sets is just two functions. This extends to products of more than two things and in particular to functions to $mathbb R^n$. This phenomenon justifies the reduction you mention. It is a categorical observation valid in many different contexts.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            On a much more general level, considering sets, mapping into a product $f:Ato Btimes C$ is essentially really just two mapping $f_B:Ato B$ and $f_C:Ato C$. Similarly, mapping out of a disjoint union of sets is just two functions. This extends to products of more than two things and in particular to functions to $mathbb R^n$. This phenomenon justifies the reduction you mention. It is a categorical observation valid in many different contexts.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Dec 20 at 21:38









                            Ittay Weiss

                            63.5k6101183




                            63.5k6101183























                                3














                                Perhaps I'm missing the point of your quest for intuition, but we wish to define integrals component-wise because each component "should be independent" from one another. Having $mathbb{R}$ as a codomain is really special; when you try to move towards $mathbb{R}^m$ you lose the ability to totally order things in a natural way, and then all of your geometric intuition about signed areas and things being "under" curves flies out the window.



                                So how could you get around this? Well I'm not going to say there is not some extremely clever and brilliant definition lurking out there, but why not just pull apart your codomain until each piece looks like stuff you are used to? Why reinvent the wheel when it comes to interpretations of what the sums of strange hyeprvolumes are when we can simply iterate what we already know on multiple dimensions? And going back to my earlier comment, what possible other definition can we come up with that is compatible with our intution for the case of $m=1$?






                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                DeficientMathDude is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.














                                • 1




                                  Why reinvent the wheel? Because when you integrate functions with values in infinite-dimensional spaces (e.g., values in a Banach space that is infinite-dimensional) there are no natural coordinates at all. Conceptually, the definition of integration of functions with values in a normed vector space should not involve coordinates in the definition, but instead prove that as a theorem. In introductory courses, using coordinatewise integration as a definition of integration of functions with values in $mathbf R^n$ is concrete. But for later generalizations, this approach is not good.
                                  – KCd
                                  Dec 22 at 4:14


















                                3














                                Perhaps I'm missing the point of your quest for intuition, but we wish to define integrals component-wise because each component "should be independent" from one another. Having $mathbb{R}$ as a codomain is really special; when you try to move towards $mathbb{R}^m$ you lose the ability to totally order things in a natural way, and then all of your geometric intuition about signed areas and things being "under" curves flies out the window.



                                So how could you get around this? Well I'm not going to say there is not some extremely clever and brilliant definition lurking out there, but why not just pull apart your codomain until each piece looks like stuff you are used to? Why reinvent the wheel when it comes to interpretations of what the sums of strange hyeprvolumes are when we can simply iterate what we already know on multiple dimensions? And going back to my earlier comment, what possible other definition can we come up with that is compatible with our intution for the case of $m=1$?






                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                DeficientMathDude is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.














                                • 1




                                  Why reinvent the wheel? Because when you integrate functions with values in infinite-dimensional spaces (e.g., values in a Banach space that is infinite-dimensional) there are no natural coordinates at all. Conceptually, the definition of integration of functions with values in a normed vector space should not involve coordinates in the definition, but instead prove that as a theorem. In introductory courses, using coordinatewise integration as a definition of integration of functions with values in $mathbf R^n$ is concrete. But for later generalizations, this approach is not good.
                                  – KCd
                                  Dec 22 at 4:14
















                                3












                                3








                                3






                                Perhaps I'm missing the point of your quest for intuition, but we wish to define integrals component-wise because each component "should be independent" from one another. Having $mathbb{R}$ as a codomain is really special; when you try to move towards $mathbb{R}^m$ you lose the ability to totally order things in a natural way, and then all of your geometric intuition about signed areas and things being "under" curves flies out the window.



                                So how could you get around this? Well I'm not going to say there is not some extremely clever and brilliant definition lurking out there, but why not just pull apart your codomain until each piece looks like stuff you are used to? Why reinvent the wheel when it comes to interpretations of what the sums of strange hyeprvolumes are when we can simply iterate what we already know on multiple dimensions? And going back to my earlier comment, what possible other definition can we come up with that is compatible with our intution for the case of $m=1$?






                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                DeficientMathDude is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                Perhaps I'm missing the point of your quest for intuition, but we wish to define integrals component-wise because each component "should be independent" from one another. Having $mathbb{R}$ as a codomain is really special; when you try to move towards $mathbb{R}^m$ you lose the ability to totally order things in a natural way, and then all of your geometric intuition about signed areas and things being "under" curves flies out the window.



                                So how could you get around this? Well I'm not going to say there is not some extremely clever and brilliant definition lurking out there, but why not just pull apart your codomain until each piece looks like stuff you are used to? Why reinvent the wheel when it comes to interpretations of what the sums of strange hyeprvolumes are when we can simply iterate what we already know on multiple dimensions? And going back to my earlier comment, what possible other definition can we come up with that is compatible with our intution for the case of $m=1$?







                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                DeficientMathDude is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer






                                New contributor




                                DeficientMathDude is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                answered Dec 20 at 21:26









                                DeficientMathDude

                                1212




                                1212




                                New contributor




                                DeficientMathDude is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                New contributor





                                DeficientMathDude is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                DeficientMathDude is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.








                                • 1




                                  Why reinvent the wheel? Because when you integrate functions with values in infinite-dimensional spaces (e.g., values in a Banach space that is infinite-dimensional) there are no natural coordinates at all. Conceptually, the definition of integration of functions with values in a normed vector space should not involve coordinates in the definition, but instead prove that as a theorem. In introductory courses, using coordinatewise integration as a definition of integration of functions with values in $mathbf R^n$ is concrete. But for later generalizations, this approach is not good.
                                  – KCd
                                  Dec 22 at 4:14
















                                • 1




                                  Why reinvent the wheel? Because when you integrate functions with values in infinite-dimensional spaces (e.g., values in a Banach space that is infinite-dimensional) there are no natural coordinates at all. Conceptually, the definition of integration of functions with values in a normed vector space should not involve coordinates in the definition, but instead prove that as a theorem. In introductory courses, using coordinatewise integration as a definition of integration of functions with values in $mathbf R^n$ is concrete. But for later generalizations, this approach is not good.
                                  – KCd
                                  Dec 22 at 4:14










                                1




                                1




                                Why reinvent the wheel? Because when you integrate functions with values in infinite-dimensional spaces (e.g., values in a Banach space that is infinite-dimensional) there are no natural coordinates at all. Conceptually, the definition of integration of functions with values in a normed vector space should not involve coordinates in the definition, but instead prove that as a theorem. In introductory courses, using coordinatewise integration as a definition of integration of functions with values in $mathbf R^n$ is concrete. But for later generalizations, this approach is not good.
                                – KCd
                                Dec 22 at 4:14






                                Why reinvent the wheel? Because when you integrate functions with values in infinite-dimensional spaces (e.g., values in a Banach space that is infinite-dimensional) there are no natural coordinates at all. Conceptually, the definition of integration of functions with values in a normed vector space should not involve coordinates in the definition, but instead prove that as a theorem. In introductory courses, using coordinatewise integration as a definition of integration of functions with values in $mathbf R^n$ is concrete. But for later generalizations, this approach is not good.
                                – KCd
                                Dec 22 at 4:14













                                1














                                The idea of component-wise integrals has a concrete geometrical meaning: to decompose a function curve by projecting it onto planes, then to take the (signed) areas of these projections in their respective planes.



                                For example, let's take a look at a function v(t)=(x(t),y(t)). In the picture below, the two components of the integral of v are the area of the red curve in its horizontal plane and the area of the yellow curve in its vertical plane.



                                projections of the curve of v on two planes



                                Another way to define the integral of v would be to take the integral of the norms ||g(t)||, but I guess component-wise integrals have more respect for structure and thus have nicer algebraic properties.



                                We can also look at a physical interpretation, to make this even more concrete. In the above, interpret t as time, and v(t) as the velocity of an object O moving within some plane, so that x(t) is its horizontal velocity and y(t) is its vertical velocity, at any instant t. Then the integral of x is the horizontal distance traveled by O, and the integral of y is the vertical distance traveled by O, so that the component-wise integral of v is the 2D distance traveled by O. So with component-wise integrals, the integral of velocity remains the distance, even in multidimensional situations.



                                (Illustration produced thanks to Octave and this script.)






                                share|cite|improve this answer




























                                  1














                                  The idea of component-wise integrals has a concrete geometrical meaning: to decompose a function curve by projecting it onto planes, then to take the (signed) areas of these projections in their respective planes.



                                  For example, let's take a look at a function v(t)=(x(t),y(t)). In the picture below, the two components of the integral of v are the area of the red curve in its horizontal plane and the area of the yellow curve in its vertical plane.



                                  projections of the curve of v on two planes



                                  Another way to define the integral of v would be to take the integral of the norms ||g(t)||, but I guess component-wise integrals have more respect for structure and thus have nicer algebraic properties.



                                  We can also look at a physical interpretation, to make this even more concrete. In the above, interpret t as time, and v(t) as the velocity of an object O moving within some plane, so that x(t) is its horizontal velocity and y(t) is its vertical velocity, at any instant t. Then the integral of x is the horizontal distance traveled by O, and the integral of y is the vertical distance traveled by O, so that the component-wise integral of v is the 2D distance traveled by O. So with component-wise integrals, the integral of velocity remains the distance, even in multidimensional situations.



                                  (Illustration produced thanks to Octave and this script.)






                                  share|cite|improve this answer


























                                    1












                                    1








                                    1






                                    The idea of component-wise integrals has a concrete geometrical meaning: to decompose a function curve by projecting it onto planes, then to take the (signed) areas of these projections in their respective planes.



                                    For example, let's take a look at a function v(t)=(x(t),y(t)). In the picture below, the two components of the integral of v are the area of the red curve in its horizontal plane and the area of the yellow curve in its vertical plane.



                                    projections of the curve of v on two planes



                                    Another way to define the integral of v would be to take the integral of the norms ||g(t)||, but I guess component-wise integrals have more respect for structure and thus have nicer algebraic properties.



                                    We can also look at a physical interpretation, to make this even more concrete. In the above, interpret t as time, and v(t) as the velocity of an object O moving within some plane, so that x(t) is its horizontal velocity and y(t) is its vertical velocity, at any instant t. Then the integral of x is the horizontal distance traveled by O, and the integral of y is the vertical distance traveled by O, so that the component-wise integral of v is the 2D distance traveled by O. So with component-wise integrals, the integral of velocity remains the distance, even in multidimensional situations.



                                    (Illustration produced thanks to Octave and this script.)






                                    share|cite|improve this answer














                                    The idea of component-wise integrals has a concrete geometrical meaning: to decompose a function curve by projecting it onto planes, then to take the (signed) areas of these projections in their respective planes.



                                    For example, let's take a look at a function v(t)=(x(t),y(t)). In the picture below, the two components of the integral of v are the area of the red curve in its horizontal plane and the area of the yellow curve in its vertical plane.



                                    projections of the curve of v on two planes



                                    Another way to define the integral of v would be to take the integral of the norms ||g(t)||, but I guess component-wise integrals have more respect for structure and thus have nicer algebraic properties.



                                    We can also look at a physical interpretation, to make this even more concrete. In the above, interpret t as time, and v(t) as the velocity of an object O moving within some plane, so that x(t) is its horizontal velocity and y(t) is its vertical velocity, at any instant t. Then the integral of x is the horizontal distance traveled by O, and the integral of y is the vertical distance traveled by O, so that the component-wise integral of v is the 2D distance traveled by O. So with component-wise integrals, the integral of velocity remains the distance, even in multidimensional situations.



                                    (Illustration produced thanks to Octave and this script.)







                                    share|cite|improve this answer














                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                    share|cite|improve this answer








                                    edited Dec 22 at 22:19

























                                    answered Dec 22 at 20:52









                                    Fornost

                                    335




                                    335






























                                        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%2f3047976%2fintuition-wanted-why-define-integrals-component-wise%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

                                        Сан-Квентин

                                        Алькесар

                                        Josef Freinademetz