MHB Is my integral for the volume of a solid by rotating y=2/x around y=-1 correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stripedcat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotating Solid
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the volume of a solid formed by rotating the curve y=2/x around y=-1, with boundaries at y=0, x=1, and x=3. The integral derived is (2/x + 1)² - (0 + 1)², leading to -4/x + 4ln(x). After evaluating the integral from x=1 to x=3, the result simplifies to pi(8/3 + 4ln(3)), which can also be expressed as pi(8/3 + log(81)). Various equivalent forms of the final answer are discussed, confirming that they represent the same value. The conversation emphasizes the importance of simplifying expressions correctly to arrive at the correct volume.
stripedcat
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Okay, so, we have

y=2/x, y=0, x=1, x=3 and it's rotating around y=-1

As I understand it... This means

(2/x +1)^2-(0+1)^2
(4/x^2 + 4/x)

The integral of that is

-4/x + 4ln(x)

Am I right so far?

Plug in the 3, and then the 1

-4/3 + 4ln(3) - -4+4ln(1)

Then the result of that is multiplied by pi

This is where I'm missing something. I tried wolfram, it's coming up with pi(8/3+log(3))?

Is that right? My first answer was pi(8/3+log(81)) but that wasn't right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have the right answer, if you just simplify some...combine the two numbers and observe that ln(1) = 0. I'm not sure what command you used with W|A, but that result is not correct. To avoid confusion, you should write:

-4/3 + 4ln(3) -( -4+4ln(1))
 
It does simply down to 8/3+4ln(3)

But what does that become when multiplied by pi?

One of several options wolfram shows is indeed pi(8/3+log(81))

It also comes back with 8pi/3 + 4pi log(3)

And 4/3pi(2+3log(3))

I'm trying to verify I at least got up to a certain point right.
 
Note that:

$$4\ln(3)=\ln\left(3^4\right)=\ln(81)$$

They are all just different ways to write the same thing.
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K