When is integration good enough

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewman_phil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the surface area of a hemisphere using integration techniques, specifically through the summation of surface areas of infinitesimal cylinders. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the criteria for when an integration method is considered a "good enough approximation."

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the limitations of their integration method and questions why their approach does not yield a satisfactory approximation. They also seek clarification on the nature of convergence in integration.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's questions, providing insights into the issues with the integration method used. Some participants point out specific errors in the setup of the integral, while others offer intuitive explanations regarding the integration process.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a change of variables that may have affected the limits of integration, and the discussion includes a reference to a previous post that outlines a different method. The original poster's understanding of the problem is challenged by the feedback received.

stewman_phil
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
When is integration "good enough"

1. I was attempting to find the surface area of a hemisphere by summing up the surface areas of infinitesimal cylinders (or ribbons) of increasing radii (excluding the top and bottom areas). I wanted to solve this integration problem this way as opposed to using spherical coordinates (or any of the other numerous methods).

2. The attempt at a Solution.

My method for solving this problem is exactly the same IBY describes in the following post: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=427695

Dick explains why this attempted solution is incorrect. By claiming: "It gives you the area of the ribbon if it's vertical (i.e. parallel to the direction dx). If not it ignores the horizontal component. That's not a good enough approximation."

The value that my attempted solution outputs shows that the solution I tried is incorrect; however, this brought up a question for which I have no understanding. What makes an integration a "good enough approximation"? I had thought that since the ribbons' heights are infinitesimal there would be no problem, but there is. Why, and how would one predict that there would be a problem?

If dick's explanation is correct, then why does integration ever converge to the area under a curve? For example if one was to find the area of under y=x (a 45 degree line) for any discrete change in x, the rectangles whose sum results in the area under the curve is not quite accurate. Since the change in x ceases to be discrete in integration (it becomes infinitely small), that problem is solved. Why is it not so with the above problem?

Thank you very much! I appreciate any help I can get.​
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Your integral is wrong, you made a change of variables. So the limits a and 0 isn't the same anymore when you made [tex]dx = a\cos\theta d\theta[/tex]

EDIT: Also, I would use from - a to a. Because when you simplfy the integrand, the limits of integration isn't even aproblem
 
Last edited:


flyingpig said:
Your integral is wrong, you made a change of variables. So the limits a and 0 isn't the same anymore when you made [tex]dx = a\cos\theta d\theta[/tex]

You are correct, and I should have noted that my limits of integration are correct in what I did as opposed to IBY. I did not make that mistake. Even with correct limits of integration, the value it results in is incorrect. My question is what makes that method of integrating not a "good enough" approximation.
 


I am not 100% sure myself, but here is the intuition I think I can give you.

Instead of summing up the horizontal dx, ds sums the curvy part.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K