Proving A(xy) = A(x) + A(y) without Calculus

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wofsy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the relationship A(xy) = A(x) + A(y) for the area under the curve of 1/x from 1 to x, without using calculus or properties of logarithms. Participants explore how to define "area" for this curve and the implications of such a definition.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines A(x) as the area under the graph of 1/x from 1 to x, where x > 1.
  • Another participant questions how to define "area" for the curve 1/x, noting that area is typically defined through integrals.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the possibility of proving the property without calculus, while still wondering about explaining it intuitively.
  • One participant suggests that if "area" is meaningful and behaves correctly under rescaling, the integral manipulations could be viewed as rescaling vertically and horizontally.
  • Another participant proposes that to show A(xy) = A(x) + A(y), one must demonstrate that the area under 1/x from 1 to a transforms to the area from b to ab through appropriate rescaling.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty about how to define area for the curve 1/x and whether it is possible to prove the relationship without calculus. Multiple competing views on the definition and properties of area remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in defining area without calculus, and the dependence on assumptions about the behavior of area under transformations remains unresolved.

wofsy
Messages
724
Reaction score
0
let A(x) be the area under the graph of 1/x from 1 to the number,x,where x is bigger than 1.

Can you show without using calculus or any of the properties of logarithms that A(xy) = A(x) + A(y)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So how are we supposed to define "area". It's clear how to define area for triangles, rectangles, etc... But how do you suggest we define area for this particular curve? Usually, area is defined as the integral.
 
breedencm said:
So how are we supposed to define "area". It's clear how to define area for triangles, rectangles, etc... But how do you suggest we define area for this particular curve? Usually, area is defined as the integral.

yes you are correct. Maybe there is no way to do it. But still I wonder. Suppose you were trying to explain this miraculous property of 1/x to someone who did not know calculus.

I have always found the proof of the formulas for the log to be unintuitive.
 
If we assume "area" is meaningful, and behaves correctly under rescaling, then the crux of the integral manipulations amount to little more than rescaling vertically by some factor and horizontally by its inverse, I think.
 
Probably you need to show: the area (under the graph 1/x) between 1 and a is the same as the area between b and ab ... so you need to show that the first area is transformed to the second if you stretch horizonally by b and vertically by 1/b. So you would need to know that such a transformation preserves area.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K