Is there any way of obtaining the area of an ellipse without using calculus?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding the area of an ellipse without using calculus. Participants express curiosity about alternative methods and seek hints for non-calculus approaches. There is a reference to Apollonius's work, questioning whether the area of an ellipse could be determined prior to calculus. The mention of Newton suggests that earlier mathematicians may not have had the tools to derive the area without calculus. Overall, the conversation highlights the historical context and challenges of deriving the area of an ellipse.
omoplata
Messages
327
Reaction score
2
If so, can I get a hint on how to do it?

I did a text search for a proof in "Conics" by Apollonius, but couldn't find one. If they couldn't prove it without calculus it means they had to wait until at least Newton's time to find the area of an ellipse?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Thanks! :)
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Back
Top