Integrals over General Regions
Suppose you want to compute the volume under a paraboloid. But only over the inside of an ellipse in the plane — not over some convenient rectangle. The theory of Multiple Integrals over Rectangles tells us how to integrate over boxes. But real regions of interest — disks, triangles, regions between curves, solids bounded by surfaces — are rarely rectangles. The bridge between "integration over boxes" and "integration over an arbitrary bounded shape" is the central technical achievement of this article. We extend a function's integral to any bounded set by extending the function itself by zero. Then we ask whether that extension is integrable on some enclosing rectangle. This move looks almost too simple. But it forces us to confront a genuinely subtle question. Which subsets of are "measurable enough" that this extension procedure behaves sensibly? The answer is the theory of Jordan measurability, a precursor to Lebesgue measure. It is exactly matched to the Riemann integral. A set is Jordan measurable when its boundary is negligible in a precise sense. It can be covered by rectangles of arbitrarily small total volume. This single condition turns out to be both necessary and sufficient. It ensures the characteristic function of the region is Riemann integrable. Hence "integrating over the region" makes unambiguous sense. The payoff is a fully rigorous foundation for everything that follows in multivariable calculus. This includes computing volumes, masses, centroids, and moments of arbitrarily shaped solids. Crucially, it also means reducing all of these computations back to iterated one-variable integrals via Fubini's Theorem. Without this foundation, statements like "the volume of a region between two graphs equals a certain iterated integral" are informal folklore. With it, they become theorems with verifiable hypotheses. This article develops the definition of the integral over a general bounded region. It proves the fundamental characterization theorem linking Jordan measurability to Riemann integrability of characteristic functions. It shows exactly how such integrals reduce to computable iterated integrals. It closes by pointing toward the two natural next steps. These are handling non-rectangular regions more flexibly via Change of Variables and the Jacobian. And the deeper connection between multiple integrals and Line Integrals through Green's theorem.
- To integrate over a bounded region , extend by zero outside and integrate over any rectangle .
- This only makes sense if the extended function is Riemann integrable, which depends on the "shape" of , not on alone.
- A bounded set is Jordan measurable iff its boundary has Jordan content (volume) zero.
- The Fundamental Characterization Theorem: is Jordan measurable is Riemann integrable, and then .
- For nice regions (between graphs of continuous functions), the general integral reduces to an iterated integral computable by ordinary calculus.
- Key idea: integration over general regions is integration over rectangles applied to a zero-extended function, valid exactly when the region's boundary has zero content.
Where this lives today
Jordan measurability is the quiet hypothesis behind every application of multiple integrals to concrete shapes in engineering and physics: computing the mass of a machined part with a curved boundary, the moment of inertia of an irregular cross-section, or the centroid of a region bounded by measured data curves, all implicitly rely on the region's boundary having zero content so that "integrate the density over the shape" is well-defined. In probability and statistics, Jordan measurable sets in underlie the computation of probabilities for continuous distributions over geometrically described events (e.g., for a polygon or disk), before one graduates to the full generality of Lebesgue measure for more exotic events. In computer graphics and computational geometry, numerical quadrature over polygonal or curved domains (finite element methods, rasterization, ray-traced volume rendering) is a discretized, algorithmic echo of exactly this rectangle-cover-and-refine idea used to prove content-zero boundaries. The theory is also the direct ancestor of the two topics it naturally leads into: Change of Variables and the Jacobian, which lets one transform an awkward region into a rectangle via a substitution before integrating, and Line Integrals, whose relationship to area integrals over Jordan measurable planar regions is made precise by Green's theorem.
:::quiz[The counterexample region fails Jordan measurability because:]
- is unbounded
- equals the entire square , which has content ✓
- has infinite Lebesgue measure
- is continuous everywhere
Ask the tutor: How does the choice of -simple versus -simple decomposition affect the difficulty of computing an iterated integral over the same region?
Jordan content zero. A bounded set has (Jordan) content zero if for every there exist finitely many closed rectangles (boxes, sides parallel to axes) such that
Jordan measurable set. A bounded set is Jordan measurable if its topological boundary has Jordan content zero.
Extension by zero. Given a bounded function on a bounded set , define by
Integral over a general region. Let be bounded and choose any closed rectangle . We say is integrable over if is Riemann integrable on , and in that case define
This is independent of the choice of enclosing rectangle : if is another such rectangle, then contains a common rectangle , and vanishes outside on both and , so the integrals over and agree (both equal the integral over , by additivity of the integral over rectangles).
Jordan content (volume) of . When is bounded and (the indicator function of ) is integrable over an enclosing rectangle, define
Intuition
Picture a disk sitting inside a square . To integrate a function over , we do something almost cartoonishly direct: set to zero everywhere in the square outside the disk, then apply the machinery for rectangles that we already trust. The only thing that can go wrong is at the edge — the circle itself — where the zero-extended function jumps discontinuously from the values of to . Riemann integrability tolerates discontinuities, but only on a "thin enough" set. The content of the boundary curve is exactly the right notion of "thin." Why should a smooth curve like a circle have content zero, while some wild boundary might not? Cover the circle by a thin annular strip of width ; its area is on the order of (circumference) , which shrinks to as . Any curve that is the graph of a continuous function, or a finite union of such graphs, admits the same kind of thin covering — this is why disks, triangles, ellipses, and regions between graphs are all Jordan measurable, while pathological sets (like the boundary of a "fat Cantor set" region) may fail to be.
Reduction to iterated integrals — the picture in
The most common Jordan measurable regions in practice are -simple (or -simple) regions:
where are continuous with . The theorem below shows this is Jordan measurable, and that integrating over reduces to the iterated integral
whenever is continuous on . This is the computational engine behind area, volume, mass, and centroid calculations in multivariable calculus.
Let be bounded, and let be any closed rectangle containing . Then:
Moreover, if is Jordan measurable and is bounded, then is integrable over whenever is continuous except possibly on a set of content zero (in particular, whenever is continuous on and is compact).
A bounded function on a rectangle is Riemann integrable if and only if for every there is a partition of such that the upper and lower sums satisfy . Equivalently (Lebesgue's criterion, which we also use), is Riemann integrable on iff is bounded and its set of discontinuities has (Lebesgue, equivalently here Jordan) measure zero.
We prove the theorem in two parts using the Riemann integrability criterion (upper/lower sum characterization), which is the standard tool inherited from Multiple Integrals over Rectangles and does not itself depend on anything proved here — so there is no circularity.
Part 1: Jordan measurable integrable. Assume has content zero. Fix . By definition of content zero, choose closed rectangles with
We may enlarge each slightly (multiplying side lengths by for small ) so that the still cover , the sum of volumes is still , and — crucially — we can choose a partition of whose grid lines include the endpoints of the (enlarged) 's sides, so that each is a union of closed sub-rectangles of . Let be such a partition, and classify each sub-rectangle of into three types:
- Interior type: (interior of ). Here on , so .
- Exterior type: . Here on , so .
- Boundary type: . Here (this oscillation is at most since only takes values ).
Every sub-rectangle not entirely in or entirely outside meets (since partitions , and a connected rectangle meeting both and its complement must meet ). Hence every boundary-type is contained in some (by our refinement), so the total volume of boundary-type sub-rectangles is at most . Therefore
Since was arbitrary, by the Riemann integrability criterion is integrable on .
Part 2: integrable Jordan measurable. Assume is Riemann integrable on . Fix ; by the integrability criterion there is a partition of with
As above, classify sub-rectangles of as interior, exterior, or boundary type (relative to ). For interior and exterior sub-rectangles, ; for the rest, could be or , but in any case
because every sub-rectangle meeting meets both and its complement (it contains boundary points, which are limits of points in and limits of points outside ), forcing on any such sub-rectangle — wait, we must be careful: a sub-rectangle could meet yet have only if is constant on it, which cannot happen on a sub-rectangle meeting , since is precisely the set of points every neighborhood of which meets both and ; so every closed sub-rectangle meeting has nonempty interior meeting both and (as long as the sub-rectangle has nonempty interior, which we may assume by choosing with no degenerate cells), giving oscillation exactly there. Hence
These sub-rectangles cover (since and partitions into these sub-rectangles), and their total volume is . As was arbitrary, has content zero, i.e. is Jordan measurable.
Part 3: integrability of over . Suppose is Jordan measurable and is bounded and continuous except on a set of content zero. We show is Riemann integrable on by Lebesgue's criterion: a bounded function on a rectangle is Riemann integrable iff its set of discontinuities has measure zero (content zero implies measure zero, and for our purposes a finite union of content-zero sets is again content zero, hence measure zero). The discontinuities of on are contained in : at any point of , agrees with the continuous on a neighborhood inside , so is continuous there; at any point outside , near that point, so it's continuous there. So discontinuities can only occur on . Since has content zero (hypothesis) and has content zero ( Jordan measurable), their union has content zero (a finite union of content-zero sets has content zero: cover each by rectangles of total volume and combine). A fortiori this union has measure zero, so by Lebesgue's criterion is Riemann integrable on , i.e. is integrable over . In particular if is continuous on all of and is compact, take : continuity on the compact set (with the subspace topology) does not by itself immediately give continuity of at boundary points, but boundary points of lie in , which is already accounted for and has content zero regardless of 's values there. So the conclusion holds.
∎Let be continuous with , and let
Then is Jordan measurable, and for any continuous ,
Step 1: is Jordan measurable. The graph has content zero: since is continuous on the compact interval , it is uniformly continuous, so given choose with whenever . Partition into subintervals of length ; over each subinterval , the graph of lies in a rectangle where (which exists by compactness/continuity). The total area of these rectangles is
The same argument gives a cover of (graph of ) of total area . Also, the left and right edges and are (possibly degenerate) segments, each coverable by a single rectangle of arbitrarily small area (width ). Since , a finite union of content-zero sets, has content zero. Step 2: reduction to the iterated integral. Let enclose , with , (exist by compactness). By Fubini's Theorem applied to the bounded, Riemann-integrable function on (integrability guaranteed by the theorem above, since is continuous on the compact Jordan measurable ),
provided the inner integral exists for (at least almost) every ; here we verify it exists for every . Fix . As a function of , equals for and elsewhere on ; it has at most two discontinuities (at and , where the extension may jump), hence is Riemann integrable on (bounded, finitely many discontinuities measure zero discontinuity set integrable, by Lebesgue's criterion for one variable). Moreover
since vanishes outside and the integral is additive over subintervals of (splitting into , , and noting the outer two contribute ). Substituting into the Fubini identity gives exactly
Worked examples
Example 1: A region bounded by a line and a parabola (asymmetric, no special symmetry). Let be the region between the curves and , for between their intersection points. Find . Step 1 — find the region. Solve , i.e. , giving and . For , compare: at , and , so the line is on top: on . Thus
Both and are continuous on , so by the Corollary is Jordan measurable and the iterated formula applies. Step 2 — inner integral over .
Compute at :
Compute at :
Subtract:
Step 3 — integrate over .
At : . At : . Difference: . So .
Example 2: Computing a volume where the base is a genuinely non-rectangular, non-symmetric triangle. Let be the triangle with vertices , , . Compute . Step 1 — describe as -simple. Find the two non-horizontal edges. Edge from to : slope , line , valid for . Edge from to : slope , line , i.e. , valid for . Edge from to is , the base. So splits naturally into two -simple pieces:
Both are Jordan measurable (triangles bounded by graphs of continuous — here affine — functions), and with a single vertical segment , which has content zero (a segment is a degenerate rectangle of zero area). Additivity of the integral over a union of Jordan measurable sets meeting in a content-zero set (a direct consequence of additivity for the extended functions, since altering on a content-zero set does not change the integral) gives
Step 2 — compute over .
Step 3 — compute over .
Expand , so the integrand is . Integrate:
At : . At : . Difference: . Multiply by : . Step 4 — total.
The theorem requires 's boundary to have content zero; without it, (and hence "integrating over " in general) can fail to be Riemann integrable at all, even though is a perfectly well-defined bounded set.
Construction. Let and let
is bounded (it lies in ). What is ? Since the rationals are dense in and so are the irrationals, every point has, in every neighborhood, both points with rational first coordinate (in ) and points with irrational first coordinate (not in ). Hence every point of is a boundary point: , and . So does not have content zero, and is not Jordan measurable.
What breaks. Consider on . For any partition of into sub-rectangles, each sub-rectangle (having positive area, hence containing both rational and irrational -values in its interior) satisfies and . Hence
for every partition . So always, never approaching ; by Riemann's criterion is not Riemann integrable on . Consequently "" and "" are simply undefined within Riemann/Jordan theory for this — the extension-by-zero procedure produces a non-integrable function no matter which enclosing rectangle we use, exactly because the hypothesis (content-zero boundary) fails. (This does have a well-defined Lebesgue measure, namely — a reminder that Jordan and Lebesgue theories diverge precisely on such sets.)
Scope, edge cases & common traps
| Situation | What holds | What can fail |
|---|---|---|
| compact, a finite union of continuous graphs | Jordan measurable; iterated integral formula valid for continuous | — |
| Jordan measurable, bounded with finitely/countably many "nice" discontinuities of content zero | integrable over | If discontinuity set has positive content, integrability can fail |
| bounded but has positive content (e.g. rational-coordinate sets, some fractal boundaries) | has a Lebesgue measure | not Riemann integrable; undefined in this theory |
| Jordan measurable, content zero | Fails if the overlap has positive content — double counting | |
| Unbounded (e.g. ) | Outside this theory entirely | Requires improper/Lebesgue integration, not covered by this definition |
The mathematician behind it
Origins · 1 minCamille Jordan and how this was discovered
Camille Jordan was a French mathematician renowned for foundational contributions across analysis, group theory, and topology, including the Jordan curve theorem, Jordan normal form in linear algebra, and — central to this article — the theory of Jordan content and measure. Working in an era before Lebesgue's measure theory (published 1902), Jordan sought a rigorous notion of "area" and "volume" for subsets of Euclidean space compatible with Riemann's newly rigorous definition of the integral. His content-based approach, appearing in his Cours d'analyse (1892), gave the first fully precise treatment of "the region under a curve" as a mathematical object rather than a picture, and remains the exact framework in which the Riemann multiple integral over general regions is properly justified today.
Why do we need Jordan measurability at all — can't we just integrate over any bounded set?
No: the counterexample shows a perfectly well-defined bounded set whose extension-by-zero characteristic function is not Riemann integrable on any enclosing rectangle. The upper and lower sums never get close, no matter how fine the partition, because every sub-rectangle contains both points of and points outside . Jordan measurability — boundary of content zero — is exactly the condition ruling this pathology out. Riemann's integrability criterion is fundamentally about controlling oscillation on partition cells, and a boundary with positive content guarantees oscillation that can't be tamed. So "any bounded set" is too permissive; Jordan measurability is precisely necessary and sufficient.
Is Jordan content the same thing as Lebesgue measure?
They agree on Jordan measurable sets but Lebesgue measure is strictly more general. Every Jordan measurable set is Lebesgue measurable with the same measure, but the converse fails: the rationals in have Lebesgue measure but do not have Jordan content (any finite rectangle cover of a dense set must, by density, actually cover an entire interval, forcing positive total length). Jordan content requires finite covers by rectangles, while Lebesgue measure allows countably infinite covers, which is exactly the extra flexibility needed to "see" that dense countable sets are negligible. This is why the counterexample set in this article is Lebesgue measurable (measure in the -direction sense) yet not Jordan measurable.
Does the value of depend on which enclosing rectangle we pick?
No, and this is proven directly from additivity of the rectangle integral. If and both enclose , their intersection (or any common rectangle containing ) still contains , and since vanishes identically outside , the integral of over any rectangle enclosing picks up exactly the same nonzero contribution (from within ) and adds zero contribution from the rest. Formally this uses additivity of the Riemann integral over rectangles, a basic fact from Multiple Integrals over Rectangles that predates and does not depend on the Jordan measurability theory built here.
What's the fastest way to check a region is Jordan measurable in practice?
In nearly all calculus problems, the region's boundary is built from finitely many graphs of continuous functions (lines, parabolas, circles, etc.) glued along finitely many points. Since each such graph has content zero (by the uniform continuity argument used in the Corollary's proof), and a finite union of content-zero sets has content zero, essentially every region you encounter in a calculus course — disks, ellipses, triangles, polygons, regions between two continuous curves — is automatically Jordan measurable. You rarely need to verify this from the raw -definition; instead you check that the boundary decomposes into finitely many continuous graphs or line segments.
How does this generalize Fubini's theorem, which was originally stated for rectangles?
It doesn't change Fubini's theorem itself — it shows how to reduce an integral over a general (non-rectangular) region to a setting where Fubini's theorem, as already established for rectangles, directly applies. We extend by zero to get defined on an enclosing rectangle , verify is Riemann integrable there (using Jordan measurability plus continuity of ), and then invoke Fubini on . The extra work in the Corollary is checking that the inner one-variable integral of , which a priori runs over all of , collapses to the shorter interval because vanishes outside it.
What happens if the region is not bounded, like a region under a curve extending to infinity?
This theory does not apply directly — Jordan content and the definition of given here both explicitly require to be bounded (so it fits inside some finite rectangle ). Unbounded regions require improper multiple integrals, defined as limits of integrals over an increasing sequence of bounded Jordan measurable regions exhausting (analogous to improper integrals in one variable), or more robustly via Lebesgue integration, which handles unbounded domains and unbounded integrands within a single unified framework without needing exhaustion arguments.
Why does the proof split sub-rectangles into interior/exterior/boundary types instead of just using continuity of ?
Because is not continuous — it is discontinuous exactly at , which is the whole point. The proof cannot invoke "continuity implies integrability" directly; instead it must directly estimate the oscillation of cell-by-cell in a partition, which is precisely what the upper/lower sum (Riemann) criterion is built to measure. The three-way classification isolates exactly where oscillation can be nonzero (only boundary-type cells) and shows their total volume is controlled by the content-zero hypothesis on — this is the mechanism, not a shortcut around it.