B "Onion proof" of the area of a circle

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the "onion proof" for the area of a circle, which involves visualizing the circle as composed of thin discs. Each disc's area is expressed as 2πrdr, and integration is used to sum these areas to find the total area of the circle. Participants debate whether it's valid to conceptualize these discs as rectangles with a length of 2πr and height dr, concluding that while this perspective is unnecessary, it can aid understanding. The conversation also touches on the treatment of infinitesimals in calculus, clarifying that higher-order infinitesimals vanish in comparison to first-order ones during limits. Ultimately, the integration leads to the area formula for a circle, reinforcing the connection between geometric shapes and calculus.
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"?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Thinking it as a rectangle is unnecessary, but if it works for you - OK.
 
  • Like
Likes 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
 
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

Back
Top