The method of exhaustion for the area of a parabolic segment

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Forrest T
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area Method
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the method of exhaustion as presented in "Calculus Volume I" by Apostol, specifically regarding the treatment of inequalities in the proof for the area of a parabolic segment. The author highlights two key equations involving sums of squares and expresses confusion over Apostol's decision to discard certain terms, questioning the validity of this approach. The inequalities derived from these equations are essential for proving that \(\frac{b^3}{3}\) lies between the lower and upper sums, thus validating the theorem. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the rationale behind mathematical simplifications in proofs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus concepts, particularly limits and integrals.
  • Familiarity with the method of exhaustion and its historical context.
  • Knowledge of mathematical induction as a proof technique.
  • Ability to manipulate and interpret algebraic inequalities.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of exhaustion in detail, focusing on its application in classical geometry.
  • Review mathematical induction techniques and their use in proving inequalities.
  • Explore Archimedes' original works on the method of exhaustion for historical insights.
  • Examine the derivation of inequalities in calculus, particularly in relation to Riemann sums.
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematicians interested in historical methods of proof, and educators seeking to clarify the method of exhaustion in teaching contexts.

Forrest T
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
When I started reading Calculus Volume I by Apostol, I didn't fully understand his description of the method of exhaustion. I noticed that Caltech and MIT don't even teach from this section of the book, and decided not to worry about it. I understand why everything in the proof is true, I just don't understand why Apostol discarded parts of some equations. Please enlighten me.
Here is the part of the proof that confuses me.

The author establishes the following equations:

12+22+[itex]\ldots[/itex]+[itex](n-1)<sup>2</sup>[/itex]=[itex]\frac{n<sup>3</sup>}{3}[/itex]-[itex]\frac{n<sup>2</sup>}{2}[/itex]+[itex]\frac{n}{6}[/itex]

12+22+[itex]\ldots[/itex]+[itex](n)<sup>2</sup>[/itex]=[itex]\frac{n<sup>3</sup>}{3}[/itex]+[itex]\frac{n<sup>2</sup>}{2}[/itex]+[itex]\frac{n}{6}[/itex]

Then it says: For our purposes, we do not need the exact expressions given in the right-hand members of [these two equations]. All we need are the two inequalities

12+22+[itex]\ldots[/itex]+[itex](n-1)<sup>2</sup>[/itex]<[itex]\frac{n<sup>3</sup>}{3}[/itex]<12+22+[itex]\ldots[/itex]+[itex](n)<sup>2</sup>[/itex]

which are valid for every integer n[itex]\geq1[/itex]. These inequalities can be deduced easily as consequences of [the two above equations], or they can be proved directly by induction.

If we multiply both inequalities by [itex]\frac{b<sup>3</sup>}{n<sup>3</sup>}[/itex] and make use of [the equations for the upper sum, [itex]S<sub>n</sub>[/itex], and lower sum, [itex]s<sub>n</sub>[/itex], we observe

[itex]s<sub>n</sub>[/itex]<[itex]\frac{b<sup>3</sup>}{3}[/itex]<[itex]S<sub>n</sub>[/itex]

for every n. The author then proves that [itex]\frac{b<sup>3</sup>}{3}[/itex] is the only number between [itex]s<sub>n</sub>[/itex] and [itex]S<sub>n</sub>[/itex], proving the theorem.

It seems to me as though the author arbitrarily discards part of the first equations, and I don't understand the justification for this. In other words, I don't know why he would discard the last two terms in these equations. Doing this provides a more convenient proof of the theorem, although the author makes it seem as though he is deriving the result through the method of exhaustion, in the same way that Archimedes did. Archimedes would not have randomly discarded these terms unless he already knew how it worked out, in which case this is not really a derivation. Can someone please explain this to me?

Thanks!

Forrest T
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fix your latex!
 
Haha I did. I made a new one though, so ignore this thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
575
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K