"Onion proof" of the area of a circle

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter K41
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area Circle Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the "Onion proof" of the area of a circle, specifically the derivation of the area using infinitesimal discs. Each disc's area is represented as 2πrdr, which is derived through integration. Participants debate the validity of conceptualizing these discs as rectangles, with one contributor explaining that the infinitesimal nature of the segments leads to a rectangle approximation in the limit. The discussion emphasizes the mathematical rigor behind the integration process and the treatment of higher-order infinitesimals.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, specifically integration techniques.
  • Familiarity with the concept of infinitesimals in mathematical analysis.
  • Knowledge of geometric properties of circles and their areas.
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical notation and limits.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of infinitesimals in calculus, focusing on their applications in integration.
  • Explore the derivation of the area of a circle using polar coordinates.
  • Learn about the implications of higher-order infinitesimals in mathematical proofs.
  • Investigate other proofs of the area of a circle, such as the traditional geometric proof.
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematicians interested in geometric proofs, and educators seeking to explain the concept of area derivation through integration.

K41
Messages
94
Reaction score
1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_a_circle#Onion_proof
I understand the basic concept, although it is a little difficult to visualize the thin discs close to the centre of the circle. Regarding the area of each disc, it is given in the link above as 2πrdr. Then, by means of integration, each disc is "added" and the total area of the circle obtained.

Is it valid to think of each thin disc as a rectangle of length "2πr" and height "dr"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thinking it as a rectangle is unnecessary, but if it works for you - OK.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: K41
Of course it is, were you to "unroll" it, it'd be just that.
 
K41 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_a_circle#Onion_proof
I understand the basic concept, although it is a little difficult to visualize the thin discs close to the centre of the circle. Regarding the area of each disc, it is given in the link above as 2πrdr. Then, by means of integration, each disc is "added" and the total area of the circle obtained.

Is it valid to think of each thin disc as a rectangle of length "2πr" and height "dr"?

I suspect that was a abuse of language; the way I learned, infinitesimals of higher order (like ##(\Delta x)^2## ) vanish when compared to infinitesimals of first order (like ##\Delta x##). In the figure below:
241051


The area ## \Delta A ## is a segment of a ring with thickness ##\Delta r## and inner radius ##r \Delta\phi## and outer radius ##(r + \Delta r) \Delta\phi##; now, for ##\Delta\phi## very small,

##sin \Delta\phi = \Delta\phi + \epsilon (\Delta\phi)^3 + ...##

when the limit is taken, the term ##(\Delta \phi)^3## becomes an infinitesimal of higher order, so it will vanish when compared to ##\Delta\phi##; therefore ##sin \Delta\phi = \Delta\phi## when the limit is taken. That is, when the limit is taken the inner radius is the same as ##r sin \Delta\phi##, that is, the same as the base of a trapezoid.

Now, the outer radius of the ring is ##(r+\Delta r)*\Delta\phi##, which is the same (on the limit) as ##(r + \Delta r) * sin \Delta\phi##, which is the same as the second base of the trapezoid.

It so happens that ##(r + \Delta r) * sin \Delta\phi = r.sin \Delta\phi + (\Delta r)*(sin \Delta \phi) = (r.sin \Delta\phi )+ (\Delta r)*( \Delta\phi )## and ##(\Delta r)*(\Delta\phi)## is also an infinitesimal of higher order, so it will vanish too on the limit; therefore, the length of the second base is the same as the first base, making that a rectangle on the limit, not a trapezoid. The rectangle has base ##(r.sin \Delta\phi)## and height ##\Delta r##. I think that's why the guy wrote that the infinitesimal ring segment is equivalent to an infinitesimal rectangle, or abusing the language, the ring is equivalent to a rectangle.

So ##\Delta A = (\Delta r)*(r.sin \Delta\phi)## + (higher order infinitesimals) = ##r \Delta r \Delta\phi## + (higher order infinitesimals), and

##lim_{r->0,phi->0} \Delta A = d^2A = lim_{r->0,phi->0} (r \Delta r \Delta\phi) + lim_{r->0,phi->0}## (higher order infinitesimals)## = r.dr.d\phi + 0##

integrating over ##\phi##, the area of the ring is then ##dA = 2 \pi r dr##

Keep in mind, I'm just a low level Padawan here, so someone will probably admonish me for abusing notation too.. :)
 
Err... typo... those limits are on ##lim_{\Delta r ->0,\Delta \phi ->0}##, not ##lim_{r ->0,\phi ->0}## ... haha... I'm so bad on writing properly :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K