I've always thought of dxat the end of an integral as a "full stop" or something to tell me what variable I'm integrating with respect to.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I looked up the derivation of the formula for volume of a sphere, and here, dx is taken as an infinitesimally small change which ismultipliedby the area of a disc(pi r^2) giving [tex]\displaystyle V = 2\pi \int_0^r x^2 dy[/tex] which is the sum of these infinitesimals.

Now I'm really confused. Is it correct to think of it this way?Is there any other way to prove this result without using infinitesimals?Also, if I'm integrating from 0 to r, wouldn't this give me the area of only half the sphere?

Part two to my question:

Using this same logic of using infinitesimals, I tried to find the surface area of a sphere and looked at it as the sum of infinite rings.

[tex]\displaystyle A = \int_0^r 2\pi x dy[/tex]

[tex]=> \displaystyle A = \int_0^r 2\pi \sqrt{r^2-y^2} dy[/tex]

But this is wrong. Why?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# B Using infinitesimals to find the volume of a sphere/surface

Tags:

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - Using infinitesimals find | Date |
---|---|

A Maximization problem using Euler Lagrange | Feb 2, 2018 |

I Derivation of pi using calculus | Sep 20, 2017 |

Confused about using the integral and infinitesimal? | Aug 10, 2015 |

Infinitesimal volume using differentials | Oct 13, 2013 |

The use of infinitesimals | Apr 24, 2006 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**