grahas
- 32
- 1
How is this done? My textbook only specifies integrating polar graphs with respect to theta.
The discussion revolves around the integration of polar graphs with respect to the radius, exploring methods for calculating areas and generating graphs based on polar coordinates. Participants are seeking to understand how to approach this integration, particularly in the context of visualizing the area as a function of radius.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the best method for integrating polar graphs with respect to radius. Multiple competing views and approaches are presented, with some participants agreeing on the use of annuli while others prefer trapezoidal estimates. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the most effective technique.
Participants express uncertainty about the conversion of polar equations to parametric forms and the implications of their integration methods. There are also unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the integration process and the nature of the shapes involved.
No need for trapezoids. For infinitesimal dh rectangles are enoughgrahas said:Well to integrate with respect to r my best guess was to use trapezoids to estimate the area.
right. From symmetry, finding one point suffices.The points on the trapezoid are calculated from intersection points with a circle of radius r
Not correct. Can you see why not ?and the thickness of the trapezoid is dr
Yes. My charcoal englishHendrik Boom said:Integrating with respect to r, wouldn't you be dealing with rings or arcs instead of straight lines?
Hehe, PF culture insists that you do the work and we help by asking, hinting etceteragrahas said:How could this be generalized to a formula that could be graphed?
Isn't ##\left (\cos 2\theta\right )^2 - r = 0## good enough ? if you want to integrate over ##dr## all you need to do is work this around to a function ##\theta(r)##, something with an ##\arccos##, I suppose...grahas said:how to convert the polar graph to a parametric one