MHB Why is the Riemann Sum 1 + 6i/n and Not 1 + 3i/n?

Houdini1
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Question:
A solid has a rectangular base that lies in the first quadrant and is bounded by the x and y-axes and the lines x=2, y=1. The height of the solid above point (x,y) is 1+3x. Find the Riemann approximation of the solid.

Solution:

I already know that the solution is [math]\sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{2}{n} \left(1+\frac{6i}{n} \right)[/math]. What I don't see is why it's 1+(6i)/n and not 1+(3i)/n. Volume can be generalized to be the area of the base times the height, so for this problem I have something like [math]x*y*f(x)[/math]. Of course x is changing so I must rewrite this.

For any partition where we approximate the volume between x_1 and x_2 the length will be [math]\Delta x=\frac{2}{n}[/math] The y value is a constant 1, so won't need to be written explicitly as far as I can see. I know this part is incorrect but it seems to me that the height should be [math]1+\frac{3i}{n}[/math], but I know that since we haven't defined where [math]x_i[/math] is in each partition (it could be the left value, middle value, right value or anywhere) then I'm really stuck here.

EDIT: Now that I think about it more since we haven't defined what n is we don't know what i/n either and i/n will change according to how many partitions we take. So am I correct in thinking that [math]f(x_i)=f(i\Delta x)[/math]? If so this makes sense now.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Houdini said:
Question:
A solid has a rectangular base that lies in the first quadrant and is bounded by the x and y-axes and the lines x=2, y=1. The height of the solid above point (x,y) is 1+3x. Find the Riemann approximation of the solid.

Solution:

I already know that the solution is [math]\sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{2}{n} \left(1+\frac{6i}{n} \right)[/math]. What I don't see is why it's 1+(6i)/n and not 1+(3i)/n. Volume can be generalized to be the area of the base times the height, so for this problem I have something like [math]x*y*f(x)[/math]. Of course x is changing so I must rewrite this.

For any partition where we approximate the volume between x_1 and x_2 the length will be [math]\Delta x=\frac{2}{n}[/math] The height is a constant 1, so won't need to be written explicitly as far as I can see. I know this part is incorrect but it seems to me that the height should be [math]1+\frac{3i}{n}[/math], but I know that since we haven't defined where [math]x_i[/math] is in each partition (it could be the left value, middle value, right value or anywhere) then I'm really stuck here.

EDIT: Now that I think about it more since we haven't defined what n is we don't know what i/n either and i/n will change according to how many partitions we take. So am I correct in thinking that [math]f(x_i)=f(i\Delta x)[/math]? If so this makes sense now.

This is just a one dimensional integral/Riemann sum problem in disguise, since the height is a function of \(x\) only and the interval for \(y\) is of width \(1\), so we seek:
\[\int_{x=0}^2 (1+3x) \; dx\]
We divide the \(x\)-interval \([0,2]\) into \(n\) strips each of width \(2/n\), then the area of the \(i\)-th strip is approximately:
\[A_i=\frac{2}{n} \times \left(1+3 \times \frac{2\times i}{n}\right)\]
where we are using the \(x\) value of the right edge of the \(i\)-th strip (\( (2 \times i)/n \) ) as our approximate value of \(x\) in the formula for the height of the for the strip.

Then the right Riemann sum is:
\[S_n=\sum_{i=1}^{n}A_i={\Large{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}}}\left[ \frac{2}{n} \times \left(1+3 \times \frac{2\times i}{n}\right)\right] \].

CB
 
Last edited:
Almost makes perfect sense, just would like clarification about the [math]f(x_i)=f(i \times \Delta x)[/math] part. If that's true than I see [math]f(x_i)[/math] as [math]\left( 1+ 3 \left[ i \times \frac{2}{n} \right] \right)[/math]. I know that's just rewriting what you posted but writing it this way seems to confirm my stated assumption.

That's well put that this is a disguised single variable integral too.
 
Last edited:
For original Zeta function, ζ(s)=1+1/2^s+1/3^s+1/4^s+... =1+e^(-slog2)+e^(-slog3)+e^(-slog4)+... , Re(s)>1 Riemann extended the Zeta function to the region where s≠1 using analytical extension. New Zeta function is in the form of contour integration, which appears simple but is actually more inconvenient to analyze than the original Zeta function. The original Zeta function already contains all the information about the distribution of prime numbers. So we only handle with original Zeta...
Back
Top