Finding Point c on f(x) = kx^n for Equal Area Between 0 and c

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Monocles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area Root
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a point \( c \) on the graph of the function \( f(x) = kx^n \) such that the area under the curve from 0 to \( c \) is equal to the area from \( c \) to a point \( b > c \). Participants explore the generalization of this concept and the mathematical implications involved in proving it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a method to find \( c \) for \( f(x) = kx \) and proposes a generalization for \( f(x) = kx^n \), suggesting \( c = \frac{b}{\sqrt[n+1]{2}} \).
  • Another participant agrees with the initial calculation and suggests that it can be considered a proof, but raises questions about the nature of \( n \) (whether it must be a natural number, negative, rational, or complex).
  • A participant attempts to generalize the problem further using a summation \( \sum_{i=1}^n k_i x^i \) but expresses difficulty in simplifying the resulting equation.
  • Concerns are raised about the correctness of manipulating terms in the equations, particularly regarding the integration factors and the cancellation of constants.
  • One participant mentions the term "geometric series" and questions how it relates to their current problem, indicating a potential connection that remains unclear to them.
  • Another participant points out an error in the manipulation of terms and questions the validity of the assumptions made in the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of agreement on the correctness of the initial approach, but there is no consensus on the generalization or the subsequent calculations. Disagreements arise regarding the validity of certain mathematical manipulations and the implications of the geometric series.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in their assumptions about the nature of \( n \) and the conditions under which their manipulations hold true. There are unresolved mathematical steps and concerns about the correctness of the transformations applied to the equations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students studying calculus and those exploring the relationships between areas under curves and algebraic expressions, particularly in the context of polynomial functions.

Monocles
Messages
463
Reaction score
2
Ok, so doing a physics problem the other day I had to find a point c on a graph such that there was an equal amount of area between 0 and c and c and a point b > c. I found that for the graph f(x) = kx, the point was b over the square root of 2. This intrigued me so I looked for a generalization. Does this look correct? I'm still a low level math student (only in Calculus 2) so I don't know anything about the correct way to solve this stuff. Is this a proof as well? If not, how would I prove it?

[tex]f(x) = kx^n[/tex]


[tex]\int_{0}^{c} kx^n dx = \int_{c}^{b} kx^n dx[/tex]


[tex]k\int_{0}^{c} x^n dx = k\int_{c}^{b} x^n dx[/tex]


[tex]\left[ \frac{x^{n+1}}{n+1} \right]_{0}^{c} = \left[ \frac{x^{n+1}}{n+1} \right]_{c}^{b}[/tex]


[tex]c^{n+1} = b^{n+1} - c^{n+1}[/tex]


[tex]2c^{n+1} = b^{n+1}[/tex]


[tex]c = \frac{b}{\sqrt[n+1]{2}}[/tex]


thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Seems correct to me. Explicit calculation is one way of proving things, so this can be considered a proof (if you supplement it with some text and a statement of what you have actually proven, assumptions ...) For example, must your "n" be a natural number, can it be negative, rational, complex..?
 
OK, I decided to try and generalize it a bit more, but I hit a wall.

Maybe this should go in homework help section at this point? I don't know.

But anyways, I tried to generalize the same thing as the above, but with:


[tex]\sum_{i=1}^n k_i x^i[/tex]


I won't bother writing out all my work, but here is what I come up with:


[tex]\sum_{i=1}^n c^{i+1} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n b^{i+1}[/tex]

Is there any way to simplify this further? It doesn't seem very useful in this form... (keep in mind I'm only in Calc 2 so if it would require Real Analysis or something like that its over my head at the moment)
 
Assuming this is correct ( I doubt it, what did you do with the factors [itex]\frac{1}{i+1}[/itex] coming from the integration of [itex]x^i[/itex]...? How did you cancel the k's...?), have you ever heard the term "geometric series"?
 
Oops yeah you're right, I messed up getting rid of k.

Here is what I had right before that:


[tex]2 \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i c^{i+1}}{i+1} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i b^{i+1}}{i+1}[/tex]


Which I turned (incorrectly) into:


[tex]2 \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i}{i+1} + \sum_{i=1}^{n} c^{i+1} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i b^{i+1}}{i+1}[/tex]


I don't think I would be allowed to do this, would I? If I can, I can still eliminate k, but expanding those series makes it look like that's wrong too.


[tex]2 \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i}{i+1} \times \sum_{i=1}^{n} c^{i+1} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i b^{i+1}}{i+1}[/tex]


Edit: Yes I know about geometric series, I am having trouble seeing the connection to this though. I am getting pretty sleepy, though.
 
Monocles said:
[tex]2 \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i c^{i+1}}{i+1} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i b^{i+1}}{i+1}[/tex]


Which I turned (incorrectly) into:


[tex]2 \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i}{i+1} + \sum_{i=1}^{n} c^{i+1} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{k_i b^{i+1}}{i+1}[/tex]


I don't think I would be allowed to do this, would I?

Indeed, this is wrong.
Consider the case n=2:
[tex]\frac{k_1c^2}{2}+\frac{k_2c^3}{3}\neq\frac{k_1}{2}+\frac{k_2}{3}+c^2+c^3[/tex]

Do you any reason to believe this...?

[tex] \sum_{i=1}^n{c^i}[/tex]

by definition IS a geometric series. So if you're familar with the term and know in principle how to find a more explicit expression for them, where is your problem in applying it to this sum?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K