Double Integrals: Will this solution always give the correct answer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theBEAST
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrals
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of double integrals to find volumes under surfaces, specifically addressing the method of subtracting a rectangular volume from the surface volume. The initial concern raised is that this method may yield incorrect results if the maximum height of the surface is less than 1. However, it is concluded that for the given problem involving the paraboloid defined by z = 2 + x² + (y - 1)², this method is valid since the height is always greater than 2. The clarification emphasizes the importance of understanding the surface's characteristics before applying the subtraction method.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of double integrals in calculus
  • Familiarity with volume calculations under surfaces
  • Knowledge of paraboloids and their properties
  • Ability to interpret graphical representations of functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of paraboloids and their applications in volume calculations
  • Learn about the implications of changing limits in double integrals
  • Explore examples of double integrals with varying surface heights
  • Investigate the use of graphical tools to visualize surfaces and their volumes
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in calculus, mathematicians focusing on integral calculus, and anyone involved in geometric volume calculations will benefit from this discussion.

theBEAST
Messages
361
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Here is the problem:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64325990/Photobook/question.PNG

Here is the answer:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64325990/Photobook/solution.PNG

So what the answer says is that you can find the volume under the surface minus the volume of the rectangle with height z=1. However I don't see how this will work for every question. Here I will illustrate why I think their solution will not always be correct:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64325990/Photobook/Photo%202012-05-31%205%2004%2056%20PM.jpg

As you can see, if it so happens that the max height of the surface is less than 1 then subtracting the rectangle will give you an answer too small. Does anyone agree with me?
For those who are interested, I decided to subtract 1 from the z function and find the surface under z = 1+x^2+(y-2)^2 which also gave the correct answer.
Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, what I see is that you have the paraboloid upside down! With z= 2+ x^2+ (y- 1)^2, and squares never being negative, the smallest value of z will be 2 when x= 0 and y= 1.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Actually, what I see is that you have the paraboloid upside down! With z= 2+ x^2+ (y- 1)^2, and squares never being negative, the smallest value of z will be 2 when x= 0 and y= 1.

Ah yes, the illustration I made was just an example that would not work right? But the question given here, because the height is always greater than 2, then subtracting a rectangle would work. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K