Calculating Length of a Parameterized Plane Curve using HMMT Calculus Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter snipez90
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the length of a parameterized plane curve defined by integrals involving cosine and sine functions. Participants clarify the application of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC) for finding derivatives of the parameterized functions, particularly addressing concerns about the lower limit being infinity. It is confirmed that as long as one limit is a variable, the FTC can be applied effectively. Additionally, there is a discussion on rewriting expressions in terms of exponential functions for easier limit evaluation. The conversation also touches on a separate HMMT problem involving a smooth function and recursion, highlighting the challenges faced in solving it.
snipez90
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
5
A plane curve is parameterized by x(t) = \int^{\infty}_{t} \frac{cos u}{u} du and y(t) = \int^{\infty}_{t} \frac{sin u}{u} for 1 \leq t \leq 2. What is the length of the curve?

I know the formula for the length of the curve so I know you need to find dy/dt and dx/dt and integrate the square root of the sum of their squares and integrate that over the interval [1,2].

But my question is finding each derivative. I understand that you could apply the fundamental theorem of calc that in essences states the derivative of the integral is the original function. So you just flip the limits of integration, put a negative out front, and simply write dx/dt = -cos u / u. But in the actual statement of this FTC, the lower limit of integration is a constant (commonly denoted a or c), so I'm second guessing myself. Should it matter that the lower limit is infinity? I guess I was thrown a bit by the infinity and our AP class just covered the FTC before I attempted this problem, it seems like the infinity wouldn't affect the differentiability of an already integrated function.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ah thank you, that makes a lot of sense. So as long as one limit of integration is a variable and the other is a quantity other than a variable, then we can directly apply this FTC if we want the derivative?

Also is the equation x^a = e^(a ln(x)) pretty common?
 
I don't know what you mean by "pretty common" but that equation is certainly true and shows that an exponential with any base can be written in terms of "the" exponential function ex.
 
By the way, both limits of integration can be variable and you can still do the FTC.
 
HallsofIvy said:
I don't know what you mean by "pretty common" but that equation is certainly true and shows that an exponential with any base can be written in terms of "the" exponential function ex.

I see, rewriting in terms of e certainly is useful for evaluating limits such as x^x.

Xevarion said:
By the way, both limits of integration can be variable and you can still do the FTC.

Yes, I think I meant to say that if both are variable, it's just a bit more work.

OK, I fully understand how to do problems 1-5 of HMMT 2005 and they all seem very straightforward with just a basic understanding of calculus. Knowing that I'm probably getting ahead of my problem-solving abilities and/or my calculus knowledge, I attempted #10:

10. Let f: R -> R be a smooth function such that f '(x) = f(1-x) for all x and f(0) = 1. Find f(1).

Seeing the potential for recursion and no other approach, I differentiated both sides to get f''(x) = -f'(1-x) = -f(x). Here I tried plugging in values, ended up with zero, and realized I was using circular reasoning... So now I'm stuck. I took a peek at the solution and it involved lots of trig. Any suggestions on how I should proceed or what I should consider?
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K