A question about Fermat's method of calculating areas under curves

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Fermat's method for calculating areas under curves of the form y = x^n, as described in Eli Maor's book "e: The Story of a Number." The user initially miscalculated the areas of rectangles formed by dividing the interval from x = 0 to x = a into subintervals. The correct formula for the area is A_{r} = \frac{a^{n+1}(1 - r)}{1 - r^{n+1}}, derived from the correct calculation of rectangle heights using the differences in adjacent ordinates. The user clarified that the bases of the rectangles are (a - ar), (ar - ar^2), and so forth, leading to the accurate summation of areas.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, specifically integration techniques.
  • Familiarity with geometric series and their summation.
  • Knowledge of polynomial functions, particularly y = x^n.
  • Basic algebra for manipulating equations and formulas.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the integral for polynomial functions.
  • Learn about geometric series and their applications in calculus.
  • Explore the historical context of Fermat's contributions to calculus.
  • Investigate modern techniques for numerical integration of curves.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of calculus, educators teaching integration methods, and anyone interested in the historical development of mathematical concepts.

murshid_islam
Messages
468
Reaction score
21
I am currently reading the book "e: The Story of a Number" by Eli Maor. And I got stuck at something. In chapter 7 of the book, the author described the method Fermat used to calculate areas under curves of the form y = x^n, where n is a positive integer. I am quoting the relevant bit here (sorry, I can't show the figure, but from the description, you can easily receate it):

Figure 19 shows a portion of the curve y = x^n between the points x = 0 and x = a on the x-axis. We imagine that the interval from x = 0 to x = a is divided into an infinite number of subintervals by the points ... K, L, M, N, where ON = a. Then, starting at N and working backward, if these intervals are to form a decreasing geometric progression, we have ON = a, OM = ar, OL = ar2, and so on, where r is less than 1. The heights (ordinates) to the curve at these points are then a^n, (ar)^n, (ar^{2})^n, ... From this it is easy to find the area of each rectangle and then sum up the areas, using the summation formula for an infinite geometric series. The result is the formula,

A_{r} = \frac{a^{n+1}(1-r)}{1 - r^{n+1}}

where the subscript r under the A indicates that this area still depends on our choice of r.
Now I can't get to the final formula. The areas of each rectangle I found are a^{n+1}, (ar)^{n+1}, (ar^{2})^{n+1}, and so on. Their sum,

A_{r} = a^{n+1} + (ar)^{n+1} + (ar^{2})^{n+1} + \cdots
= a^{n+1}\left(1 + r^{n+1} + r^{2(n+1)} + \cdots \right)
= \frac{a^{n+1}}{1 - r^{n+1}}Where am I getting wrong?
.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are using the ordinates to get the heights of the rectangles. I think the formula is based on using the averages of the adjacent ordinates to get the rectangle heights,
 
mathman said:
You are using the ordinates to get the heights of the rectangles. I think the formula is based on using the averages of the adjacent ordinates to get the rectangle heights,

Thanks, but that was not it. I've just figured out my mistake. I got the areas of the rectangles wrong. The sum of the areas would be,

A_r = (a - ar)a^n + (ar - ar^2)(ar)^n + (ar^2 - ar^3)(ar^2)^n + \cdots
A_r = a^{n+1}(1 - r) \left(1 + r^{n+1} + r^{2(n+1)} + \cdots \right)
A_r = \frac{a^{n+1}(1 - r)}{1 - r^{n+1}}
 
murshid_islam said:
The areas of each rectangle I found are a^{n+1}, (ar)^{n+1}, (ar^{2})^{n+1},
.

I don't understand how you got those areas. Does the base of the first rectangle have length = a or does it have length = (a - ar)?
 
Stephen Tashi said:
I don't understand how you got those areas. Does the base of the first rectangle have length = a or does it have length = (a - ar)?

Yes, that's the mistake I made. I posted the correct calculation in this post: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3604692&postcount=3"

The bases are (a - ar), (ar - ar2), (ar2 - ar3), and so on.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Relativistic Momentum, Mass, and Energy Momentum and mass (...), the classic equations for conserving momentum and energy are not adequate for the analysis of high-speed collisions. (...) The momentum of a particle moving with velocity ##v## is given by $$p=\cfrac{mv}{\sqrt{1-(v^2/c^2)}}\qquad{R-10}$$ ENERGY In relativistic mechanics, as in classic mechanics, the net force on a particle is equal to the time rate of change of the momentum of the particle. Considering one-dimensional...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K