Integrals for Area and Line Length of Closed Loops with Unknown Shape

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around setting up integrals to find the area enclosed by a closed loop of unknown shape, given its length L. The original poster attempts to establish integrals for area and length using polar coordinates, but there is uncertainty regarding the correctness of their setup.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formulation of integrals for area and length, questioning the definitions and roles of the function f(r, θ). There are attempts to clarify the relationship between the integrals and the geometric properties they represent.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and questioning assumptions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of polar coordinates and the application of Lagrange multipliers, though there is no explicit consensus on the correct approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note constraints such as the requirement to use Lagrange multipliers and the need to demonstrate that the optimal shape is a circle without assuming it from the start. There is also mention of the isoperimetric problem as a relevant context for the discussion.

Bill Foster
Messages
334
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm trying to set up a couple integrals.

Suppose you have a closed loop and you want to find its area. You don't know what the shape of the loop is. All you know is that the length of the loop is L.


The Attempt at a Solution



These are my integrals. I just need to know if they are set up correctly:

[tex]A=\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{r}f(r,\theta)r dr d\theta[/tex]
[tex]L=\int_{0}^{2\pi}f(r,\theta)r d\theta[/tex]

Where A is the area enclosed in the loop, and L is the length of the loop. And [tex]f(r,\theta)[/tex] is the equation of the line.

Is that correct? (It's been such a log time since I've done this.)

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think if it's been a long time you might want to look this stuff up before you post. The first one looks more like a volume than an area, the second looks more like an area of a cross section at constant r than a length. The first one is not even grammatical. You never want to have the same variable in the limits of the integral as the integration variable. The integration variable is a dummy.
 
Dick said:
I think if it's been a long time you might want to look this stuff up before you post.

I did. My calculus book didn't have exactly what I was looking for, so I had to "figure it out."

The first one looks more like a volume than an area,

How so? It's in two dimensions, like area. And if [tex]f(r,\theta)=1[/tex], then the integration works out to [tex]\pi r^2[/tex] - the area of a circle, which is what I expect.
the second looks more like an area of a cross section at constant r than a length. The first one is not even grammatical. You never want to have the same variable in the limits of the integral as the integration variable. The integration variable is a dummy.

Then how would you do it?
 
And the second one, if [tex]f(r,\theta)=1[/tex], works out to [tex]2\pi r[/tex], which is the circumference, as I expected.
 
What exactly is [itex]f(r, \theta)[/itex]? You say it is the "equation of the line" but that can't be true. It is not an equation!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what I'm trying to figure out and why I'm here asking for help.
 
Bill Foster said:
That's what I'm trying to figure out and why I'm here asking for help.

Maybe you could give us the exact question you are trying to solve?
 
Find the maximum area A enclosed by a line of Length L using Lagrange multipliers.
 
Sigh. A "line of length l" does not enclose an area. I might think you were talking about finding the closed path of given length that encloses maximum area but that requires the calculus of variations, not Lagrange multipliers. What does the problem really say?
 
  • #10
Here you go - quoted directly:

Let f be an area enclosed by a continuous line of length L. Find the extrema of f. This is a famous problem in geometry known as the isoperimetric problem.

I guess I better go back and tell the professor that his problem is flawed, since A "line of length l" does not enclose an area.
 
  • #11
Bill Foster said:
Here you go - quoted directly:
I guess I better go back and tell the professor that his problem is flawed, since A "line of length l" does not enclose an area.

Hmmm. I didn't know that you could prove the isoperimetric inequality that way, but it looks like you might. Take the curve to be of the parametric form f(t)=(x(t),y(t)). The length is the integral of sqrt(x'(t)^2+y'(t)^2) and the area is the integral of (1/2)*(x(t)*y'(t)-x'(t)*y(t)) for a closed curve (up to a sign).
 
Last edited:
  • #12
There's no time dependency in this problem.
 
  • #13
Looking a little closer, it appears as f=A, because:

Let f be an area enclosed by a continuous line of length L. Find the extrema of f. This is a famous problem in geometry known as the isoperimetric problem.

So that means my integral is going to have to be something like [tex]f=A=\int_{area} (something) da[/tex]
 
  • #14
Bill Foster said:
There's no time dependency in this problem.

t isn't time. It's a parameter that describes the curve. As in the unit circle is described by x(t)=cos(t) and y(t)=sin(t) where t is in [0,2pi]. I think you are intended to use Euler-Lagrange, not Lagrange multipliers (though the two are related). Review the Euler-Lagrange equations. You do need calculus of variations.
 
  • #15
Dick said:
t isn't time. It's a parameter that describes the curve. As in the unit circle is described by x(t)=cos(t) and y(t)=sin(t) where t is in [0,2pi]. I think you are intended to use Euler-Lagrange, not Lagrange multipliers (though the two are related). Review the Euler-Lagrange equations. You do need calculus of variations.

Unfortunately, I have to use Lagrange multipliers. That's the point of the exercise.

And the professor said it would be easier to use polar coordinates. We also can't assume that the line is a circle at the beginning. The line encloses an arbitrary shaped area. And the solution is supposed to show that it's a circle. If I start off with the equation of a circle, then I haven't shown anything (professor's words).
 
  • #16
The circle was just an example. Write a polar curve as r=f(theta) (so the t in the problem is theta). Then the area is the integral of (1/2)*f(theta)^2*dtheta and the length is the integral of sqrt(f(theta)^2+f'(theta)^2)*dtheta. Sure, you want to put a Lagrange multiplier on the arc length, since it's your constraint. I still would review Euler-Lagrange. I don't see how the polar coordinates are making it easier, but maybe I'm missing something.
 
  • #17
Looks like I was looking in the wrong place in my calculus book. I found the following equations for area and length.

If the equation of my line is [tex]r=g(\theta)[/tex], then my area integral is [tex]A=\int \frac{1}{2} g^2(\theta) d\theta[/tex], and all the way around would, of course, be [tex]A=\oint \frac{1}{2} g^2(\theta) d\theta[/tex].

The length of the line (all the way around) would be [tex]L=\oint \sqrt{g^2(\theta)+g'^2(\theta)} d\theta[/tex]
 
  • #18
So now setting the the Lagrange Method:

[tex]\Lambda=\frac{1}{2}\oint g^2(\theta)d\theta + \lambda(\oint \sqrt{g^2(\theta)+g'^2(\theta)} d\theta)-L)[/tex]
 
  • #19
Now what? Is it:

[tex]\frac{\partial\Lambda}{\partial g}=0[/tex]
[tex]\frac{\partial\Lambda}{\partial \lambda}=0[/tex]

OR

[tex]\frac{\partial\Lambda}{\partial \theta}=0[/tex]
[tex]\frac{\partial\Lambda}{\partial \lambda}=0[/tex]

?
 
  • #20
Now it's Euler-Lagrange. And it's the first set of equations if you interpret the partial derivative as a variation. You should be able to produce a differential equation for g that it's fairly easy to show g=constant satisfies for a choice of lambda. But there are other solutions. They are circles whose center is not at (0,0), but it's not clear to me how to prove that easily in polar coordinates. Can you?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K