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 Rn\mathbb{R}^n 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.

Key takeaways
  • To integrate ff over a bounded region DD, extend ff by zero outside DD and integrate over any rectangle R⊇DR \supseteq D.
  • This only makes sense if the extended function is Riemann integrable, which depends on the "shape" of ∂D\partial D, not on ff alone.
  • A bounded set DD is Jordan measurable iff its boundary ∂D\partial D has Jordan content (volume) zero.
  • The Fundamental Characterization Theorem: DD is Jordan measurable   ⟺  \iff χD\chi_D is Riemann integrable, and then vol(D)=∫RχD\text{vol}(D) = \int_R \chi_D.
  • 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 Rn\mathbb{R}^n underlie the computation of probabilities for continuous distributions over geometrically described events (e.g., P((X,Y)∈D)P((X,Y)\in D) for DD 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 D=(Q∩[0,1])×[0,1]D = (\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1])\times[0,1] fails Jordan measurability because:]

  • DD is unbounded
  • ∂D\partial D equals the entire square [0,1]×[0,1][0,1]\times[0,1], which has content 1≠01\neq 0 ✓
  • DD has infinite Lebesgue measure
  • χD\chi_D is continuous everywhere

Ask the tutor: How does the choice of xx-simple versus yy-simple decomposition affect the difficulty of computing an iterated integral over the same region?

DefinitionJordan Content, Jordan Measurability, and the Integral over a General Region

Jordan content zero. A bounded set Z⊆RnZ \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n has (Jordan) content zero if for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there exist finitely many closed rectangles R1,…,RkR_1, \dots, R_k (boxes, sides parallel to axes) such that

Z⊆⋃i=1kRiand∑i=1kvol⁡(Ri)<ε.Z \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^{k} R_i \qquad \text{and} \qquad \sum_{i=1}^{k} \operatorname{vol}(R_i) < \varepsilon.

Jordan measurable set. A bounded set D⊆RnD \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n is Jordan measurable if its topological boundary ∂D\partial D has Jordan content zero.

Extension by zero. Given a bounded function f:D→Rf : D \to \mathbb{R} on a bounded set DD, define fD:Rn→Rf_D : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R} by

fD(x)={f(x)x∈D0x∉D.f_D(x) = \begin{cases} f(x) & x \in D \\ 0 & x \notin D. \end{cases}

Integral over a general region. Let DD be bounded and choose any closed rectangle R⊇DR \supseteq D. We say ff is integrable over DD if fDf_D is Riemann integrable on RR, and in that case define

∫Df  =  ∫RfD.\int_D f \;=\; \int_R f_D.

This is independent of the choice of enclosing rectangle RR: if R′⊇DR' \supseteq D is another such rectangle, then R∩R′⊇DR \cap R' \supseteq D contains a common rectangle R′′⊇DR''\supseteq D, and fDf_D vanishes outside DD on both R∖DR\setminus D and R′∖DR' \setminus D, so the integrals over RR and R′R' agree (both equal the integral over R′′R'', by additivity of the integral over rectangles).

Jordan content (volume) of DD. When DD is bounded and χD\chi_D (the indicator function of DD) is integrable over an enclosing rectangle, define

vol⁡(D)=∫RχD.\operatorname{vol}(D) = \int_R \chi_D.

Intuition

Picture a disk DD sitting inside a square RR. To integrate a function ff over DD, we do something almost cartoonishly direct: set ff 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 ff to 00. 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 δ\delta; its area is on the order of (circumference) ×δ\times \delta, which shrinks to 00 as δ→0\delta \to 0. 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.

Figure
Extending ff by zero from a disk DD to an enclosing rectangle RR, and covering ∂D\partial D by thin rectangles of total area <ε<\varepsilon
R (enclosing rectangle) D f defined here thin strip covering ∂D f_D = 0 here vol(strip) → 0 as strip width → 0, since ∂D is a smooth closed curve

Reduction to iterated integrals — the picture in R2\mathbb{R}^2

The most common Jordan measurable regions in practice are yy-simple (or xx-simple) regions:

D={(x,y):a≤x≤b, g1(x)≤y≤g2(x)},D = \{(x,y) : a \le x \le b,\ g_1(x) \le y \le g_2(x)\},

where g1,g2:[a,b]→Rg_1, g_2 : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R} are continuous with g1≤g2g_1 \le g_2. The theorem below shows this DD is Jordan measurable, and that integrating over DD reduces to the iterated integral

∫Df=∫ab(∫g1(x)g2(x)f(x,y) dy)dx,\int_D f = \int_a^b \left( \int_{g_1(x)}^{g_2(x)} f(x,y)\, dy \right) dx,

whenever ff is continuous on DD. This is the computational engine behind area, volume, mass, and centroid calculations in multivariable calculus.

TheoremFundamental Characterization Theorem for Jordan Measurability

Let D⊆RnD \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n be bounded, and let RR be any closed rectangle containing DD. Then:

D is Jordan measurable⟺χD is Riemann integrable on R.D \text{ is Jordan measurable} \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \chi_D \text{ is Riemann integrable on } R.

Moreover, if DD is Jordan measurable and f:D→Rf : D \to \mathbb{R} is bounded, then ff is integrable over DD whenever ff is continuous except possibly on a set of content zero (in particular, whenever ff is continuous on DD and DD is compact).

LemmaRiemann's Integrability Criterion, restated

A bounded function hh on a rectangle RR is Riemann integrable if and only if for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a partition PP of RR such that the upper and lower sums satisfy U(h,P)−L(h,P)<εU(h, P) - L(h,P) < \varepsilon. Equivalently (Lebesgue's criterion, which we also use), hh is Riemann integrable on RR iff hh is bounded and its set of discontinuities has (Lebesgue, equivalently here Jordan) measure zero.

Proof

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 ⇒χD\Rightarrow \chi_D integrable. Assume ∂D\partial D has content zero. Fix ε>0\varepsilon > 0. By definition of content zero, choose closed rectangles S1,…,SkS_1,\dots,S_k with

∂D⊆⋃i=1kSi,∑ivol⁡(Si)<ε.\partial D \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^k S_i, \qquad \sum_i \operatorname{vol}(S_i) < \varepsilon.

We may enlarge each SiS_i slightly (multiplying side lengths by 1+δ1+\delta for small δ\delta) so that the SiS_i still cover ∂D\partial D, the sum of volumes is still <ε<\varepsilon, and — crucially — we can choose a partition PP of RR whose grid lines include the endpoints of the (enlarged) SiS_i's sides, so that each SiS_i is a union of closed sub-rectangles of PP. Let PP be such a partition, and classify each sub-rectangle RjR_j of PP into three types:

  • Interior type: Rj⊆D∘R_j \subseteq D^{\circ} (interior of DD). Here χD≡1\chi_D \equiv 1 on RjR_j, so sup⁡RjχD=inf⁡RjχD=1\sup_{R_j}\chi_D = \inf_{R_j}\chi_D = 1.
  • Exterior type: Rj∩D‾=∅R_j \cap \overline{D} = \emptyset. Here χD≡0\chi_D \equiv 0 on RjR_j, so sup⁡=inf⁡=0\sup = \inf = 0.
  • Boundary type: Rj∩∂D≠∅R_j \cap \partial D \neq \emptyset. Here sup⁡RjχD−inf⁡RjχD≤1\sup_{R_j}\chi_D - \inf_{R_j}\chi_D \le 1 (this oscillation is at most 11 since χD\chi_D only takes values 0,10,1).

Every sub-rectangle not entirely in D∘D^\circ or entirely outside D‾\overline D meets ∂D\partial D (since D∘∪∂D∪(Rn∖D‾)D^\circ \cup \partial D \cup (\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \overline D) partitions Rn\mathbb{R}^n, and a connected rectangle meeting both DD and its complement must meet ∂D\partial D). Hence every boundary-type RjR_j is contained in some SiS_i (by our refinement), so the total volume of boundary-type sub-rectangles is at most ∑ivol⁡(Si)<ε\sum_i \operatorname{vol}(S_i) < \varepsilon. Therefore

U(χD,P)−L(χD,P)=∑j: boundary(sup⁡RjχD−inf⁡RjχD)vol⁡(Rj)≤∑j: boundaryvol⁡(Rj)<ε.U(\chi_D, P) - L(\chi_D,P) = \sum_{j:\ \text{boundary}} \big(\sup_{R_j}\chi_D - \inf_{R_j}\chi_D\big)\operatorname{vol}(R_j) \le \sum_{j:\ \text{boundary}} \operatorname{vol}(R_j) < \varepsilon.

Since ε>0\varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, by the Riemann integrability criterion χD\chi_D is integrable on RR.

Part 2: χD\chi_D integrable ⇒\Rightarrow Jordan measurable. Assume χD\chi_D is Riemann integrable on RR. Fix ε>0\varepsilon > 0; by the integrability criterion there is a partition PP of RR with

U(χD,P)−L(χD,P)<ε.U(\chi_D,P) - L(\chi_D,P) < \varepsilon.

As above, classify sub-rectangles of PP as interior, exterior, or boundary type (relative to DD). For interior and exterior sub-rectangles, sup⁡−inf⁡=0\sup - \inf = 0; for the rest, sup⁡−inf⁡\sup - \inf could be 00 or 11, but in any case

∑j: Rj∩∂D≠∅vol⁡(Rj)  ≤  U(χD,P)−L(χD,P)<ε,\sum_{j:\ R_j \cap \partial D \neq \emptyset} \operatorname{vol}(R_j) \;\le\; U(\chi_D,P) - L(\chi_D, P) < \varepsilon,

because every sub-rectangle meeting ∂D\partial D meets both DD and its complement (it contains boundary points, which are limits of points in DD and limits of points outside DD), forcing sup⁡RjχD=1>0=inf⁡RjχD\sup_{R_j}\chi_D = 1 > 0 = \inf_{R_j}\chi_D on any such sub-rectangle — wait, we must be careful: a sub-rectangle could meet ∂D\partial D yet have inf⁡=sup⁡\inf = \sup only if χD\chi_D is constant on it, which cannot happen on a sub-rectangle meeting ∂D\partial D, since ∂D\partial D is precisely the set of points every neighborhood of which meets both DD and DcD^c; so every closed sub-rectangle meeting ∂D\partial D has nonempty interior meeting both DD and DcD^c (as long as the sub-rectangle has nonempty interior, which we may assume by choosing PP with no degenerate cells), giving oscillation exactly 11 there. Hence

∑j: Rj∩∂D≠∅vol⁡(Rj)=U(χD,P)−L(χD,P)<ε.\sum_{j:\ R_j \cap \partial D \neq \emptyset} \operatorname{vol}(R_j) = U(\chi_D,P) - L(\chi_D,P) < \varepsilon.

These sub-rectangles cover ∂D\partial D (since ∂D⊆R\partial D \subseteq R and PP partitions RR into these sub-rectangles), and their total volume is <ε< \varepsilon. As ε>0\varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, ∂D\partial D has content zero, i.e. DD is Jordan measurable.

Part 3: integrability of ff over DD. Suppose DD is Jordan measurable and f:D→Rf: D \to \mathbb{R} is bounded and continuous except on a set Z⊆DZ \subseteq D of content zero. We show fDf_D is Riemann integrable on RR 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 fDf_D on RR are contained in Z∪∂DZ \cup \partial D: at any point of D∘∖ZD^\circ \setminus Z, fD=ff_D = f agrees with the continuous ff on a neighborhood inside D∘D^\circ, so fDf_D is continuous there; at any point outside D‾\overline{D}, fD≡0f_D \equiv 0 near that point, so it's continuous there. So discontinuities can only occur on Z∪∂DZ \cup \partial D. Since ZZ has content zero (hypothesis) and ∂D\partial D has content zero (DD Jordan measurable), their union has content zero (a finite union of content-zero sets has content zero: cover each by rectangles of total volume <ε/2<\varepsilon/2 and combine). A fortiori this union has measure zero, so by Lebesgue's criterion fDf_D is Riemann integrable on RR, i.e. ff is integrable over DD. In particular if ff is continuous on all of DD and DD is compact, take Z=∅Z = \emptyset: continuity on the compact set DD (with the subspace topology) does not by itself immediately give continuity of fDf_D at boundary points, but boundary points of DD lie in ∂D\partial D, which is already accounted for and has content zero regardless of ff's values there. So the conclusion holds. ■\blacksquare

∎
CorollaryIterated integral formula for simple regions

Let g1,g2:[a,b]→Rg_1, g_2 : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R} be continuous with g1≤g2g_1 \le g_2, and let

D={(x,y):a≤x≤b, g1(x)≤y≤g2(x)}.D = \{(x,y) : a \le x \le b,\ g_1(x) \le y \le g_2(x)\}.

Then DD is Jordan measurable, and for any continuous f:D→Rf : D \to \mathbb{R},

∫Df(x,y) dA=∫ab(∫g1(x)g2(x)f(x,y) dy)dx.\int_D f(x,y)\, dA = \int_a^b \left(\int_{g_1(x)}^{g_2(x)} f(x,y)\, dy\right) dx.
Proof

Step 1: DD is Jordan measurable. The graph Γ1={(x,g1(x)):x∈[a,b]}\Gamma_1 = \{(x, g_1(x)) : x \in [a,b]\} has content zero: since g1g_1 is continuous on the compact interval [a,b][a,b], it is uniformly continuous, so given ε>0\varepsilon>0 choose δ>0\delta>0 with ∣g1(x)−g1(x′)∣<ε/(2(b−a))|g_1(x)-g_1(x')|<\varepsilon/(2(b-a)) whenever ∣x−x′∣<δ|x-x'|<\delta. Partition [a,b][a,b] into NN subintervals of length <δ<\delta; over each subinterval IkI_k, the graph of g1g_1 lies in a rectangle Ik×[ mk,mk+ε/(2(b−a)) ]I_k \times [\,m_k, m_k + \varepsilon/(2(b-a))\,] where mk=min⁡Ikg1m_k = \min_{I_k} g_1 (which exists by compactness/continuity). The total area of these NN rectangles is

∑kε2(b−a)⋅∣Ik∣=ε2(b−a)⋅(b−a)=ε2.\sum_k \frac{\varepsilon}{2(b-a)} \cdot |I_k| = \frac{\varepsilon}{2(b-a)} \cdot (b-a) = \frac{\varepsilon}{2}.

The same argument gives a cover of Γ2\Gamma_2 (graph of g2g_2) of total area <ε/2<\varepsilon/2. Also, the left and right edges {a}×[g1(a),g2(a)]\{a\}\times[g_1(a),g_2(a)] and {b}×[g1(b),g2(b)]\{b\}\times[g_1(b),g_2(b)] are (possibly degenerate) segments, each coverable by a single rectangle of arbitrarily small area (width η→0\eta \to 0). Since ∂D⊆Γ1∪Γ2∪(two vertical segments)\partial D \subseteq \Gamma_1 \cup \Gamma_2 \cup (\text{two vertical segments}), a finite union of content-zero sets, ∂D\partial D has content zero. Step 2: reduction to the iterated integral. Let R=[a,b]×[c,d]R = [a,b] \times [c,d] enclose DD, with c≤min⁡g1c \le \min g_1, d≥max⁡g2d \ge \max g_2 (exist by compactness). By Fubini's Theorem applied to the bounded, Riemann-integrable function fDf_D on RR (integrability guaranteed by the theorem above, since ff is continuous on the compact Jordan measurable DD),

∫RfD=∫ab(∫cdfD(x,y) dy)dx,\int_R f_D = \int_a^b \left( \int_c^d f_D(x,y)\, dy \right) dx,

provided the inner integral exists for (at least almost) every xx; here we verify it exists for every x∈[a,b]x \in [a,b]. Fix xx. As a function of yy, fD(x,⋅)f_D(x,\cdot) equals f(x,y)f(x,y) for y∈[g1(x),g2(x)]y \in [g_1(x), g_2(x)] and 00 elsewhere on [c,d][c,d]; it has at most two discontinuities (at y=g1(x)y = g_1(x) and y=g2(x)y=g_2(x), where the extension may jump), hence is Riemann integrable on [c,d][c,d] (bounded, finitely many discontinuities ⇒\Rightarrow measure zero discontinuity set ⇒\Rightarrow integrable, by Lebesgue's criterion for one variable). Moreover

∫cdfD(x,y) dy=∫g1(x)g2(x)f(x,y) dy,\int_c^d f_D(x,y)\, dy = \int_{g_1(x)}^{g_2(x)} f(x,y)\, dy,

since fDf_D vanishes outside [g1(x),g2(x)][g_1(x), g_2(x)] and the integral is additive over subintervals of [c,d][c,d] (splitting [c,d][c,d] into [c,g1(x)][c,g_1(x)], [g1(x),g2(x)][g_1(x),g_2(x)], [g2(x),d][g_2(x),d] and noting the outer two contribute 00). Substituting into the Fubini identity gives exactly

∫Df=∫RfD=∫ab(∫g1(x)g2(x)f(x,y) dy)dx.■\int_D f = \int_R f_D = \int_a^b \left(\int_{g_1(x)}^{g_2(x)} f(x,y)\, dy\right) dx. \qquad \blacksquare
∎

Worked examples

Example 1: A region bounded by a line and a parabola (asymmetric, no special symmetry). Let DD be the region between the curves y=x2y = x^2 and y=3x−2y = 3x - 2, for xx between their intersection points. Find ∬D(2x−y) dA\iint_D (2x - y)\, dA. Step 1 — find the region. Solve x2=3x−2x^2 = 3x-2, i.e. x2−3x+2=0x^2 - 3x + 2 = 0, giving x=1x=1 and x=2x=2. For x∈[1,2]x \in [1,2], compare: at x=1.5x=1.5, x2=2.25x^2 = 2.25 and 3x−2=2.53x-2 = 2.5, so the line is on top: 3x−2≥x23x - 2 \ge x^2 on [1,2][1,2]. Thus

D={(x,y):1≤x≤2, x2≤y≤3x−2}.D = \{(x,y) : 1 \le x \le 2,\ x^2 \le y \le 3x-2\}.

Both g1(x)=x2g_1(x) = x^2 and g2(x)=3x−2g_2(x) = 3x-2 are continuous on [1,2][1,2], so by the Corollary DD is Jordan measurable and the iterated formula applies. Step 2 — inner integral over yy.

∫x23x−2(2x−y) dy=[2xy−y22]y=x2y=3x−2.\int_{x^2}^{3x-2} (2x-y)\, dy = \Big[2xy - \tfrac{y^2}{2}\Big]_{y=x^2}^{y=3x-2}.

Compute at y=3x−2y = 3x-2:

2x(3x−2)−(3x−2)22=6x2−4x−9x2−12x+42=6x2−4x−4.5x2+6x−2=1.5x2+2x−2.2x(3x-2) - \tfrac{(3x-2)^2}{2} = 6x^2 - 4x - \tfrac{9x^2 - 12x + 4}{2} = 6x^2 - 4x - 4.5x^2 + 6x - 2 = 1.5x^2 + 2x - 2.

Compute at y=x2y = x^2:

2x⋅x2−x42=2x3−x42.2x \cdot x^2 - \tfrac{x^4}{2} = 2x^3 - \tfrac{x^4}{2}.

Subtract:

(1.5x2+2x−2)−(2x3−x42)=x42−2x3+1.5x2+2x−2.\left(1.5x^2 + 2x - 2\right) - \left(2x^3 - \tfrac{x^4}{2}\right) = \tfrac{x^4}{2} - 2x^3 + 1.5x^2 + 2x - 2.

Step 3 — integrate over x∈[1,2]x \in [1,2].

∫12(x42−2x3+1.5x2+2x−2)dx=[x510−x42+0.5x3+x2−2x]12.\int_1^2 \left(\tfrac{x^4}{2} - 2x^3 + 1.5x^2 + 2x - 2\right) dx = \left[\tfrac{x^5}{10} - \tfrac{x^4}{2} + 0.5x^3 + x^2 - 2x\right]_1^2.

At x=2x=2: 3210−162+0.5(8)+4−4=3.2−8+4+4−4=−0.8\frac{32}{10} - \frac{16}{2} + 0.5(8) + 4 - 4 = 3.2 - 8 + 4 + 4 - 4 = -0.8. At x=1x=1: 110−12+0.5+1−2=0.1−0.5+0.5+1−2=−0.9\frac{1}{10} - \frac{1}{2} + 0.5 + 1 - 2 = 0.1 - 0.5 + 0.5 + 1 - 2 = -0.9. Difference: −0.8−(−0.9)=0.1-0.8 - (-0.9) = 0.1. So ∬D(2x−y) dA=110\displaystyle \iint_D (2x-y)\,dA = \frac{1}{10}.

Example 2: Computing a volume where the base is a genuinely non-rectangular, non-symmetric triangle. Let TT be the triangle with vertices (0,0)(0,0), (4,0)(4,0), (1,3)(1,3). Compute ∬Txy dA\displaystyle\iint_T xy \, dA. Step 1 — describe TT as xx-simple. Find the two non-horizontal edges. Edge from (0,0)(0,0) to (1,3)(1,3): slope 33, line y=3xy = 3x, valid for x∈[0,1]x\in[0,1]. Edge from (1,3)(1,3) to (4,0)(4,0): slope 0−34−1=−1\frac{0-3}{4-1} = -1, line y−0=−1(x−4)y - 0 = -1(x-4), i.e. y=4−xy = 4-x, valid for x∈[1,4]x \in [1,4]. Edge from (0,0)(0,0) to (4,0)(4,0) is y=0y=0, the base. So TT splits naturally into two xx-simple pieces:

T1={0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤3x},T2={1≤x≤4, 0≤y≤4−x}.T_1 = \{0\le x\le 1,\ 0 \le y \le 3x\}, \qquad T_2 = \{1 \le x \le 4,\ 0 \le y \le 4-x\}.

Both are Jordan measurable (triangles bounded by graphs of continuous — here affine — functions), and T=T1∪T2T = T_1 \cup T_2 with T1∩T2T_1 \cap T_2 a single vertical segment {1}×[0,3]\{1\}\times[0,3], 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 fDf_D on a content-zero set does not change the integral) gives

∬Txy dA=∬T1xy dA+∬T2xy dA.\iint_T xy\,dA = \iint_{T_1} xy\, dA + \iint_{T_2} xy\, dA.

Step 2 — compute over T1T_1.

∬T1xy dA=∫01∫03xxy dy dx=∫01x⋅(3x)22 dx=∫019x32 dx=92⋅14=98.\iint_{T_1} xy\,dA = \int_0^1 \int_0^{3x} xy\, dy\, dx = \int_0^1 x \cdot \frac{(3x)^2}{2}\, dx = \int_0^1 \frac{9x^3}{2}\, dx = \frac{9}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{4} = \frac{9}{8}.

Step 3 — compute over T2T_2.

∬T2xy dA=∫14∫04−xxy dy dx=∫14x⋅(4−x)22 dx.\iint_{T_2} xy\, dA = \int_1^4 \int_0^{4-x} xy\,dy\, dx = \int_1^4 x \cdot \frac{(4-x)^2}{2}\, dx.

Expand (4−x)2=16−8x+x2(4-x)^2 = 16 - 8x + x^2, so the integrand is 12(16x−8x2+x3)\frac{1}{2}(16x - 8x^2 + x^3). Integrate:

∫1412(16x−8x2+x3) dx=12[8x2−8x33+x44]14.\int_1^4 \frac{1}{2}(16x - 8x^2 + x^3)\, dx = \frac12\left[8x^2 - \frac{8x^3}{3} + \frac{x^4}{4}\right]_1^4.

At x=4x=4: 8(16)−8(64)3+2564=128−5123+64=192−5123=576−5123=6438(16) - \frac{8(64)}{3} + \frac{256}{4} = 128 - \frac{512}{3} + 64 = 192 - \frac{512}{3} = \frac{576 - 512}{3} = \frac{64}{3}. At x=1x=1: 8−83+14=9612−3212+312=67128 - \frac{8}{3} + \frac{1}{4} = \frac{96}{12} - \frac{32}{12} + \frac{3}{12} = \frac{67}{12}. Difference: 643−6712=25612−6712=18912=634\frac{64}{3} - \frac{67}{12} = \frac{256}{12} - \frac{67}{12} = \frac{189}{12} = \frac{63}{4}. Multiply by 12\frac12: ∬T2xy dA=638\iint_{T_2} xy\, dA = \frac{63}{8}. Step 4 — total.

∬Txy dA=98+638=728=9.\iint_T xy\, dA = \frac{9}{8} + \frac{63}{8} = \frac{72}{8} = 9.
CounterexampleDropping "Jordan measurable" — a region whose boundary does NOT have content zero

The theorem requires DD's boundary to have content zero; without it, χD\chi_D (and hence "integrating over DD" in general) can fail to be Riemann integrable at all, even though DD is a perfectly well-defined bounded set.

Construction. Let R=[0,1]×[0,1]R = [0,1]\times[0,1] and let

D=([0,1]∩Q)×[0,1]  =  {(x,y)∈R:x is rational}.D = \big([0,1]\cap \mathbb{Q}\big) \times [0,1] \;=\; \{(x,y) \in R : x \text{ is rational}\}.

DD is bounded (it lies in RR). What is ∂D\partial D? Since the rationals are dense in [0,1][0,1] and so are the irrationals, every point (x,y)∈R(x,y) \in R has, in every neighborhood, both points with rational first coordinate (in DD) and points with irrational first coordinate (not in DD). Hence every point of RR is a boundary point: ∂D=R\partial D = R, and vol⁡(R)=1≠0\operatorname{vol}(R) = 1 \ne 0. So ∂D\partial D does not have content zero, and DD is not Jordan measurable.

What breaks. Consider χD\chi_D on RR. For any partition PP of RR into sub-rectangles, each sub-rectangle RjR_j (having positive area, hence containing both rational and irrational xx-values in its interior) satisfies sup⁡RjχD=1\sup_{R_j} \chi_D = 1 and inf⁡RjχD=0\inf_{R_j}\chi_D = 0. Hence

U(χD,P)=∑j1⋅vol⁡(Rj)=vol⁡(R)=1,L(χD,P)=∑j0⋅vol⁡(Rj)=0,U(\chi_D, P) = \sum_j 1\cdot \operatorname{vol}(R_j) = \operatorname{vol}(R) = 1, \qquad L(\chi_D,P) = \sum_j 0 \cdot \operatorname{vol}(R_j) = 0,

for every partition PP. So U(χD,P)−L(χD,P)=1U(\chi_D,P) - L(\chi_D,P) = 1 always, never approaching 00; by Riemann's criterion χD\chi_D is not Riemann integrable on RR. Consequently "vol⁡(D)\operatorname{vol}(D)" and "∫Df\int_D f" are simply undefined within Riemann/Jordan theory for this DD — 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 DD does have a well-defined Lebesgue measure, namely 00 — a reminder that Jordan and Lebesgue theories diverge precisely on such sets.)

Scope, edge cases & common traps

SituationWhat holdsWhat can fail
DD compact, ∂D\partial D a finite union of continuous graphsDD Jordan measurable; iterated integral formula valid for continuous ff—
DD Jordan measurable, ff bounded with finitely/countably many "nice" discontinuities of content zeroff integrable over DDIf discontinuity set has positive content, integrability can fail
DD bounded but ∂D\partial D has positive content (e.g. rational-coordinate sets, some fractal boundaries)DD has a Lebesgue measureχD\chi_D not Riemann integrable; ∫Df\int_D f undefined in this theory
D1,D2D_1, D_2 Jordan measurable, D1∩D2D_1 \cap D_2 content zero∫D1∪D2f=∫D1f+∫D2f\int_{D_1\cup D_2} f = \int_{D_1} f + \int_{D_2} fFails if the overlap has positive content — double counting
Unbounded DD (e.g. D=R2D = \mathbb{R}^2)Outside this theory entirelyRequires improper/Lebesgue integration, not covered by this definition

The mathematician behind it

Origins · 1 minCamille Jordan and how this was discovered
CJ
Camille Jordan
1838–1922 · France, late 19th-century analysis and algebra

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.

History
- 1854: Bernhard Riemann introduces the rigorous definition of the (one-variable) integral, later called the Riemann integral.
- 1887–1892: Giuseppe Peano and Camille Jordan independently develop the theory of content (Peano–Jordan content) to define area/volume of general planar and spatial sets.
- 1892: Jordan's Cours d'analyse de l'École Polytechnique systematizes content and the multiple integral over Jordan measurable regions.
- 1902: Henri Lebesgue introduces measure theory and the Lebesgue integral, subsuming and extending Jordan's content-based approach.
- 1907: Giuseppe Vitali constructs a non-measurable set, clarifying the boundary between what content/measure theories can and cannot handle.
Why do we need Jordan measurability at all — can't we just integrate over any bounded set?

No: the counterexample D=(Q∩[0,1])×[0,1]D = (\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1])\times[0,1] 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 DD and points outside DD. 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 [0,1][0,1] have Lebesgue measure 00 but do not have Jordan content 00 (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 00 in the xx-direction sense) yet not Jordan measurable.

Does the value of ∫Df\int_D f depend on which enclosing rectangle RR we pick?

No, and this is proven directly from additivity of the rectangle integral. If RR and R′R' both enclose DD, their intersection R∩R′′R \cap R'' (or any common rectangle containing DD) still contains DD, and since fDf_D vanishes identically outside DD, the integral of fDf_D over any rectangle enclosing DD picks up exactly the same nonzero contribution (from within DD) 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 ε\varepsilon-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 ff by zero to get fDf_D defined on an enclosing rectangle RR, verify fDf_D is Riemann integrable there (using Jordan measurability plus continuity of ff), and then invoke Fubini on RR. The extra work in the Corollary is checking that the inner one-variable integral of fDf_D, which a priori runs over all of [c,d][c,d], collapses to the shorter interval [g1(x),g2(x)][g_1(x), g_2(x)] because fDf_D vanishes outside it.

What happens if the region DD is not bounded, like a region under a curve extending to infinity?

This theory does not apply directly — Jordan content and the definition of ∫Df\int_D f given here both explicitly require DD to be bounded (so it fits inside some finite rectangle RR). Unbounded regions require improper multiple integrals, defined as limits of integrals over an increasing sequence of bounded Jordan measurable regions exhausting DD (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 χD\chi_D?

Because χD\chi_D is not continuous — it is discontinuous exactly at ∂D\partial D, which is the whole point. The proof cannot invoke "continuity implies integrability" directly; instead it must directly estimate the oscillation of χD\chi_D 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 ∂D\partial D — this is the mechanism, not a shortcut around it.

Before this

Where this leads