Area of a Parametrized Surface

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the area of a parametrized surface, specifically a paraboloid, using the surface area differential. The original poster utilized the differential to derive the area, while a peer approached the problem using Cartesian coordinates (x and y) and confirmed the same result. Key points include the need to clarify the reasoning behind the parametrization choice and correcting minor typographical errors in the calculations. The final expression for the paraboloid was derived from the equation z = 4 - x² - y², leading to the conclusion that r = 2 is the correct boundary for the surface area calculation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of surface area differentials in multivariable calculus
  • Familiarity with parametrization techniques for surfaces
  • Knowledge of Cartesian and polar coordinate systems
  • Basic proficiency in algebraic manipulation of equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of surface area differentials in multivariable calculus
  • Learn about parametrizing surfaces using polar coordinates
  • Explore the implications of different parametrization choices on surface area calculations
  • Investigate common errors in surface area calculations and how to avoid them
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus and geometry, as well as educators looking to enhance their understanding of parametrized surfaces and their applications in real-world scenarios.

Differentiate1
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Here's my work: http://i.imgur.com/UMj72Ub.png

I used the surface area differential for a parametrized surface to solve for the area of that paraboloid surface. My friend tried solving this by parametrizing with x and y instead of r and theta which gave him the same answer. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone else can verify if this answer is correct as it looks out of the ordinary.

Thanks,

Differentiate1
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You've a few typos in there, but it is essentially right.
Some spurious 'r' factors in rr. You don't want the modulus signs around the first mention of rr x rθ.
You should mention the reasoning behind writing z = r2 instead of z = 4-r2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
haruspex said:
You've a few typos in there, but it is essentially right.
Some spurious 'r' factors in rr. You don't want the modulus signs around the first mention of rr x rθ.
You should mention the reasoning behind writing z = r2 instead of z = 4-r2.

Sorry about the part where I wrote z = r2. I essentially set z = 0 and moved the 4 over and got -4 = -x2-y2. Eliminate the negatives and I ended up with 4 = x2+y2 where r = 2. Hence why I set z = r2.

Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K