Is the book wrong about the work done by the equation 8x-16 from 0 to 3?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter whatdofisheat
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of work done by the equation 8x-16 over the interval from 0 to 3. Participants explore the integration process and the resulting values, as well as the interpretation of the equation in the context of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over the calculation of work done by integrating the equation 8x-16, arriving at a value of -28.
  • Another participant suggests that the first participant made a mistake in their calculations, providing an alternative calculation that results in -12.
  • A participant comments on the phrasing of the question, noting that equations themselves do not perform work, but rather represent forces acting on an object.
  • Another participant agrees with the previous point but also expresses frustration about dimensionless answers in math problems, questioning the meaning of such results.
  • Some participants engage in light-hearted banter about the initial participant's calculations and confidence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the correctness of the initial calculation, as one participant believes there is an error while another expresses frustration with the lack of dimensionality in the answers provided. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of the work done by the equation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential for confusion in mathematical phrasing and the implications of dimensionless answers, indicating a need for clarity in the context of physical applications.

Who May Find This Useful

Students and educators in physics and mathematics, particularly those interested in the application of integration in calculating work and the interpretation of mathematical results in physical contexts.

whatdofisheat
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
i am haveing some trouble solvine a simple question
the question is what is the work done by the equation
8x-16
from 0 to 3
if you intagrate it you should get
4x^2 -16x
then you sub in zero get zero then you sub in 3 and get -28?
yet the answer in the book is -12 am i doing something wrong?
or is the book wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that you made a mistake in your calculations, subbing 3 in gives
4*(9)-48=36-48=-12 =)
 
thanks i knew it was a stupid thing I am being an idoit
 
Pat yourself on the back for integrating correctly atleast :)
 
ya but if i can't times 3 by 16 correctly i think the intergration is the least of my worries
 
what is the work done by the equation
8x-16
from 0 to 3

Would it be petty of me to point out that equations don't DO work?

What you mean I presume is that the force is given by F(x)= 8x-16 and moves an object from x= 0 to x= 3.
 
You make an interesting point, but keep in mind that many of these problems in math always have an answer that is dimensionless... Yes it is better to write the work done by some force moving a particle... but when the solutions key gives an answer with no units, that really annoys me... so I don't really see anything wrong with saying "the work done by an equation." Same with surface integrals... answers are dimensionless... which is why I like to see applications of math. What does it mean when a surface integral evaluates to "16pi"? What does it mean when the work done is "5" ?
 
yes its petty
 
Tell me more
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K