I Prove slant surface of a cone is always a circular sector

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the slant surface of a cone can be flattened into a circular sector, as represented by the formula A = πrs, where s is the slant height. It is established that when the cone is cut from the apex to the base, the distance from the apex to the base remains constant around the cone, allowing the surface to be flattened without distortion. This property differentiates the cone from other shapes like a hemisphere, where such flattening is not possible. Clarifications are made regarding terminology, specifically the "distance from the apex of the cone to the base" and the necessity of cutting the base along the line of the cut. The conversation emphasizes the geometric consistency of the cone's structure in relation to its slant surface.
Happiness
Messages
686
Reaction score
30
In the elementary proof of the slant surface area of a cone ##A=\pi r s##, where ##s## is the slant height, it is assumed that the net of a cone is a circular sector. In other words, if we cut the slant surface of a cone from its apex to its base along a straight line, the resulting surface can always be flatten out (onto a 2D plane without crumbling).

How do we prove that the resulting surface can always be flatten out?

This is no true for a hemisphere, for example.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  1. You can draw a straight line from the apex to every point in the base. Thus the slanting side of the cone is a collection of straight lines, and can therefore be placed in a plane.
  2. On a cone, the distance from the apex to the base is the same all around the cone. That means if you slit the cone from the apex to the base, the distance from the cone to the base is still the same at all points in the base - even if the base is cut somewhere. Therefore, the flattened image must be a part of a circle.
 
  • Like
Likes Happiness
Svein said:
2. On a cone, the distance from the apex to the base is the same all around the cone. That means if you slit the cone from the apex to the base, the distance from the cone to the base is still the same at all points in the base - even if the base is cut somewhere. Therefore, the flattened image must be a part of a circle.

What is "the distance from the cone to the base"? And "the base is cut somewhere"?
 
Happiness said:
What is "the distance for the cone to the base"? And "the base is cut somewhere"?
  1. Sorry, sloppy checking. It should be: "the distance from the apex of the cone to the base"
  2. You specified "if we cut the slant surface of a cone from its apex to its base along a straight line". Therefore you must necessarily cut the base somewhere along that line.
 
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...
Back
Top