Solid that lies above the square (in the xy-plane)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on estimating the volume of a solid above the square region R = [0,1] x [0,1] and below the elliptic paraboloid defined by the equation z = 64 - x² + 4xy - 4y². Participants agree on dividing the region R into a 3x3 grid of equal squares, using the midpoints of each square as sample points for volume estimation. This method balances accuracy and computational efficiency, as increasing the number of squares enhances precision but requires more calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of elliptic paraboloids and their equations
  • Familiarity with volume estimation techniques in calculus
  • Knowledge of R² coordinate systems
  • Basic skills in numerical methods for integration
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore numerical integration techniques, specifically the midpoint rule
  • Learn about volume estimation for solids of revolution
  • Investigate the impact of grid size on accuracy in numerical methods
  • Study the properties of elliptic paraboloids and their applications in geometry
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus and numerical methods, as well as educators looking for practical examples of volume estimation techniques.

Whatupdoc
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Consider the solid that lies above the square (in the xy-plane) R= [0,1] X [01]
and below the elliptic paraboloid z= 64 -x^2 +4xy -4y^2

Estimate the volume by dividing R into 9 equal squares and choosing the sample points to lie in the midpoints of each square.


i'm not sure how you would dividing R into equal squares, cause it's an odd number. can someone help me get this started
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That would be a 3X3 array of squares which is reasonable considering that the paraboloid is off-center with respect to the square. Obviously, if you divided the original square into a much larger number of areas you would get more accuracy at the expense of doing a lot more work. Fewer squares mean less work but also reduced accuracy. 9 seems like a good optimum!
 
i don't know what i was thinking, thank you
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K