A general question about Surface Area

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation of surface area for a function f(x) rotated around the x-axis. It clarifies that the integral \int 2\pi*f(x) dx does not yield the correct surface area due to the geometric principles involved, specifically referencing the Pythagorean theorem integral version. The analogy of calculating arc length using a staircase function illustrates why approximating with horizontal steps fails to capture true length, emphasizing the dimensionality of the problem. This highlights the necessity of using appropriate integrals for accurate surface area computation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of integral calculus
  • Familiarity with the Pythagorean theorem
  • Knowledge of surface area calculations for solids of revolution
  • Concept of arc length in calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the surface area formula for solids of revolution
  • Learn about the Pythagorean theorem integral version in detail
  • Explore the relationship between arc length and surface area
  • Investigate advanced calculus techniques for approximating integrals
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus, geometry, and physics, will benefit from this discussion. It is especially relevant for those looking to deepen their understanding of surface area calculations and integral applications.

kscribble
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
This question is about the surface area of a function defined as f(x) rotated around the x-axis

Now I understand how the ACTUAL integral works to find the surface area, but I'm wondering why a different integral wouldn't work...

[tex]\int[/tex] 2[tex]\pi[/tex]*f(x) dx

wouldn't this add up the differential circumferences, so shouldn't this equation work? why do you have to use the Pythagorean theorem integral version to find the surface area?

thanks if you can answer this question :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That doesn't work for the same reason such a technique doesn't work for calculating arc length. Look at the graph of y = x from 0 to 1. We know its length is sqrt(2). But suppose you make a staircase function going up that line and use the sum of the delta-x's as your approximation to the length. Even when you take a finer and finer staircase, the sum of the delta-x's adds up to 1. The horizontal steps even though they get closer and closer to the straight line, don't approach it in length. Your surface area example is the same thing in one higher dimension.
 
LCKurtz said:
That doesn't work for the same reason such a technique doesn't work for calculating arc length. Look at the graph of y = x from 0 to 1. We know its length is sqrt(2). But suppose you make a staircase function going up that line and use the sum of the delta-x's as your approximation to the length. Even when you take a finer and finer staircase, the sum of the delta-x's adds up to 1. The horizontal steps even though they get closer and closer to the straight line, don't approach it in length. Your surface area example is the same thing in one higher dimension.

very interesting... i really never thought of it like that. damn, thank you!

you really know your stuff :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K