Calculus: Area Under Curve with Infinite Rectangles

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of calculating the area under a curve using definite integrals and the interpretation of limits involving infinite rectangles. Participants explore the mathematical foundations of integration, particularly focusing on the relationship between the width of rectangles and the approximation of area.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that multiplying 0 by infinity could yield the area under the curve, raising questions about the arithmetic of such operations.
  • Another participant counters that one does not multiply 0 by infinity and emphasizes that the process involves adding a finite number of rectangles with positive widths, leading to a limit as the width approaches zero.
  • A participant notes that as the base of the rectangles decreases, the approximation of the area improves, suggesting that an infinite number of rectangles would yield an exact area.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of the variable approaching zero, clarifying that it is not equal to zero but rather a limit process.
  • One participant explains that the integral represents the exact area under the curve, while Riemann sums provide approximations that become more accurate as the number of rectangles increases.
  • A later reply elaborates on the concept of upper bounds in sequences and how this relates to the least upper bound in the context of Riemann sums and integration.
  • Another participant acknowledges a previous ambiguity in their statement, reiterating that the rectangles' base approaches zero but does not reach it, affirming that the integral is indeed exact.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of multiplying 0 by infinity and the nature of approximations in integration. While some clarify the process of limits and Riemann sums, there is no consensus on the initial claim regarding 0 and infinity.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of limits and the nuances of infinite series and Riemann sums. The discussion does not resolve the arithmetic interpretation of 0 multiplied by infinity.

minase
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
In calculus class when we were learning how definite integral derived from. We added up infinite # of rectangles under the curve. As n number of interval increased length of the base of the rectangles approached 0. Can you multiply 0 by infinity and get back the area you had.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are not multiplying 0 by infinity. I can think of no arithmetic where this is allowed.

You are not adding up an infinite number of rectangles. At each stage you are adding a strictly finite number of rectangles, each of strictly positive width. Your integral exists if the limit of these sums exists in the appropriate sense (as the largest width of a rectangle tends to zero) and is the same for all choices of sequences of partitions.

You are *not* multuplying zero by infinity.
 
Last edited:
minase said:
Can you multiply 0 by infinity and get back the area you had.
You may note that x-->0 implies that x is not exactly equal to 0.
 
Its just like getting a better approximation over and over. As the base of these rectangles get smaller, the approximation is better. Think, if there were an infinite number, the approximation would be exact. This integral takes this in the limit, as in, it gets closer and closer to base zero, but not exact.
 
ssd said:
You may note that x-->0 implies that x is not exactly equal to 0.
Just to make it clear, x is not any particular number here: it is a variable. It's like the i in [itex]\sum_{i=0}^10} i^2[/itex], or the x you see in [itex]f(x) = x^2[/itex].


Gib Z said:
Its just like getting a better approximation over and over. As the base of these rectangles get smaller, the approximation is better.
This is a good way to think of it; there is a quantity, called the area under your curve. You know how to approximate the area by adding up the area of finitely many rectangles. That the integral exists is simply saying that you can force this approximation to be as good as you like simply by setting an upper bound on the width of the rectangles.


Think, if there were an infinite number, the approximation would be exact.
This is not a good way to think of it. In standard analysis, there aren't an infinite number. Even if you were to use nonstandard analysis, an infinite number of rectangles simply means that you are infinitessimally close to the area under the curve.

This integral takes this in the limit, as in, it gets closer and closer to base zero, but not exact.
I'm not clear precisely what you meant, so I will say something just in case -- the integral is exactly the area under the curve. It is the approximations of the integral by Riemann sums that are approximate.
 
As was said before, the most important idea is that you're looking for a certain bound.
Going back to the definition of an infinite series, such a series actually represents a sequence of partial sums, each of which has a finite number of terms, and thus each partial sum is some number. In the real number system, if we have an increasing sequence (each term is greater than or equal to the one before it), and we can find some real number larger than every term in the sequence. we say the sequence has an upper bound. But in the real number system, if we have such a sequence that is bounded from above, but is always increasing, then there must be some real number L that is the smallest real number larger than every term in the sequence, called the least upper bound. It is this number that we call the sum of the infinite series.
In the case of your Riemann sum, taking the limit as n approaches infinity is really looking for the least upper bound of the set of real sums where n is finite; that is, if your integral is for a positive function. I'm sure you can generalize this idea to series for which we look for greatest lower bounds and so on.
 
Hey Hurkyl, from your last quote of me, I seem to have spoken ambiguously, sorry. I meant that the base of the rectangles would approach zero, but not be exactly zero, hence his original thought on 0*infinity=Area. Of course the integral is exact :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K