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 area of a parabolic segment defined by the parabola y=x² and the line x=b. The participant expresses confusion over Apostol's omission of certain parts of equations in the proof, particularly the inequalities derived from the sums 12 + 22 + ... + (n - 1)² and 12 + 22 + ... + n². The key takeaway is that the inequalities sn < b³/3 < Sn are sufficient for proving the theorem, as they establish the bounds necessary for the method of exhaustion without needing the exact expressions of the sums.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the method of exhaustion in calculus
  • Familiarity with parabolic segments and their properties
  • Knowledge of upper and lower sums in Riemann integration
  • Basic algebraic manipulation of inequalities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of exhaustion in detail, focusing on Archimedes' original techniques
  • Explore the derivation of the area under a parabola using Riemann sums
  • Learn about the implications of inequalities in calculus proofs
  • Review the concepts of limits and convergence in the context of sequences and series
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematicians interested in historical methods of area calculation, and educators seeking to clarify the method of exhaustion and its applications in modern mathematics.

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 of the area under a parabola:

The author establishes the following equations:

12 + 22 + \cdots + (n - 1)2 = n3/3 - n2/2 + n/6
12 + 22 + \cdots + n2 = n3/3 + n2/2 + n/6

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 + \cdots + (n - 1)2 < n3/3 < 12 + 22 + \cdots + n2

which are valid for every integer n \geq1. 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 b3/n3 and make use of [the equations for the upper sum (Sn) and lower sum (sn) we observe

sn < b3/3 < Sn

for every n. The author then proves that b3/3 is the only number between sn and Sn (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. Apostol led me to believe he was deriving the theorem, as Archimedes would have, through the method of exhaustion, rather than writing an unwieldy proof of a basic formula. In other words, I don't know why Archimedes would have discarded those parts of the first two equations while deriving the theorem.
Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to give some more information. What is b and what are sn and Sn?
 
A parabolic segment is the area bounded by the parabola y=x2, the line x=b, and the x-axis. So b is the length of the base of the parabolic segment. n is the number of subdivisions of the base (each subdivision is of width b/n). Sn is the upper sum (the sum of the areas of rectangles drawn above the parabola, as an approximation) and sn is the lower sum, the sum of the areas of the rectangles drawn below the parabola.
 
I am not sure what you are asking, but sn and Sn have the same limit as n becomes infinite.
 
I realize that and can follow the proof. I just don't understand why the ends of the first two equations were discarded.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K