3
$$ \iiint \limits_0^{A} 1\,d\rho\,d\theta\,d\phi $$

enter image description here

The first integral is supposed to go from 0 to A, then second is from 0 to pi, and the third should be from 0 to 1. I couldn't find anything about it online.

Mico
  • 506,678
  • 2
    The usual approach would be three different \int, each with their own limits. \iiint would have the limits too bunched up to tell apart, in my opinion. Are you sure you want that? (PS, you should use \[...\] instead of $$...$$; see https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/503/107497) – Teepeemm Nov 17 '21 at 19:46

4 Answers4

3

Since you appear to prefer placing the limits of integration above and below the integral symbols, I would like to recommend that you "snug up" the integral symbols by inserting \!\! (double negative thinspace) between them.

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[intlimits]{amsmath}
\begin{document}

[ \int_{0}^{A} !! \int_{0}^{\pi} !! \int_{0}^{1} ! d\rho , d\theta , d\phi \qquad \int_{0}^{A} !! \int_{0}^{\pi} !! \int_{0}^{1} 1 , d\rho , d\theta , d\phi ]

\end{document}

Mico
  • 506,678
  • Plus, if it blends with your discipline, a differential operator set upright (e.g. here on tex.se). – Buttonwood Nov 17 '21 at 20:35
  • @Buttonwood - Thanks. Since the query was (mainly? exclusively?) about how to place the three pairs of limits of integration, I decided not to modify the OP's code for the differential operators. – Mico Nov 17 '21 at 21:41
  • I don't see it as an error. Like setting variables italic or upright shows depends on convention (and varies locally), the comment was about an optional «if». – Buttonwood Nov 18 '21 at 14:06
2

I'm not a fan of \limits with \int, unless one wants to just set a domain.

Here's a simplified version, as regards to user level syntax, that automatically computes the number of integral signs to use, based on the list of bounds.

I provide \INT for limits on the side and \INT* for limits above and below.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\ExplSyntaxOn \NewDocumentCommand{\INT}{sm} { \kourosh_int:een { \IfBooleanT{#1}{\limits} } % \limits for -version { \IfBooleanTF{#1}{6}{9} } % less kerning for -version { #2 } }

\seq_new:N \l_kourosh_int_in_seq \seq_new:N \l_kourosh_int_out_seq

\cs_new_protected:Nn \kourosh_int:nnn { \seq_set_from_clist:Nn \l_kourosh_int_in_seq { #3 } \seq_set_map:NNn \l_kourosh_int_out_seq \l_kourosh_int_in_seq { \int#1 ##1 } \seq_use:Nn \l_kourosh_int_out_seq { \mspace{-#2mu} } } \cs_generate_variant:Nn \kourosh_int:nnn { ee } \ExplSyntaxOff

\begin{document}

[ \INT{_0^A,_0^\pi,_0^1} 1,d\rho,d\theta,d\phi ] [ \INT*{_0^A,_0^\pi,_0^1} 1,d\rho,d\theta,d\phi ] [ \INT{_0^\pi,_0^1} 1,d\theta,d\phi ] [ \INT{_0^1} 1,d\phi ]

\end{document}

enter image description here

egreg
  • 1,121,712
1

For a triple integral with bounds I would be more inclined to write

\[
  \int_{0}^{A}  
  \int_{0}^{\pi}
  \int_{0}^{1}
     1\,d\rho\,d\theta\,d\phi
\]

limits style is going to push your limits too close together. It makes more sense if you have something like

\[
   \iiint\limits_{(x,y,z)\in U^3} f(x,y,z) dx\, dy\, dz
\]
Don Hosek
  • 14,078
0

Comment came in before I could post..

Yea, that's the answer:

See also: To have two limits in double integral?

MWE

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{amsmath} \newcommand{\Int}{\int\limits} \begin{document}

$$\Int_{0}^{A} \Int_{0}^{\pi} \Int_{0}^{1} d\rho; d\theta; d\phi$$

\end{document}

jdw
  • 36