Why isn't the area of a ring \pi (2rdr + (dr)^2)?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the area of a disc through the integration of infinitesimally thin rings. Participants are exploring the mathematical representation of the area of a ring and questioning the validity of different expressions for this area.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formula for the area of a ring and question why it is not represented as \pi (2rdr + (dr)^2). There are attempts to clarify the reasoning behind the integration process and the significance of higher-order infinitesimals.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing different perspectives on the reasoning behind the area calculations. Some have recognized the importance of neglecting higher powers of dr in the context of integration, while others are still questioning the implications of their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the nuances of calculus and integration, particularly in relation to the treatment of infinitesimals and the assumptions made in the derivation of the area formula. There is a recognition of the difference between finite and infinitesimal quantities in their calculations.

Hakins90
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Finding the area of a disc by integration of rings.


Homework Equations



A ring of radius r and thickness dr has an area of [tex]2 \pi rdr[/tex].


The Attempt at a Solution



Why isn't it [tex]\pi (2rdr + (dr)^2)[/tex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hakins90 said:
Why isn't it [tex]\pi (2rdr + (dr)^2)[/tex]?

I don't understand - why do you think it might be? :confused:

What would [tex]\pi (dr)^2[/tex] represent?
 
The exact area of the ring is pi*((r+dr)^2-r^2)=pi(2*r*dr+dr^2), indeed. But in the integration we are taking the limit of a sum of these where dr->0. The limit of the terms involving dr^2 will go to zero. You can ignore corrections involving higher powers of 'infinitesimals' like dr.
 
Oh dear... i posted too quickly.

I just realized why it isn't.

My old reasoning was that the ring's area = the area enclosed by the outside circumference - the area enclosed by the inside circumference.

[tex]A = \pi (r+dr)^2 - \pi r^2 <br /> = \pi (r^2 + 2rdr + (dr)^2 - r^2)<br /> = \pi (2rdr + (dr)^2)[/tex]I now realize that the ring's radius is measured from the centre of the width of the ring.

so
[tex]A = \pi (r+ \frac{1}{2} dr)^2 - \pi (r- \frac{1}{2} dr)^2<br /> =\pi (r^2 +rdr + \frac{1}{4} (dr)^2 - r^2 + rdr - \frac{1}{4} (dr)^2)<br /> = 2 \pi rdr[/tex]

EDIT: Oh you posted before i saw... We both have different reasons. Who is right?
 
If r and dr are the same, then those are the areas of two different rings. If dr is a finite number then you'd better pay attention to which is which. But,either calculation works for integration once you ignore higher powers of dr.
 
Hakins90 said:
Oh dear... i posted too quickly.

I just realized why it isn't.

My old reasoning was that the ring's area = the area enclosed by the outside circumference - the area enclosed by the inside circumference.

[tex]A = \pi (r+dr)^2 - \pi r^2 <br /> = \pi (r^2 + 2rdr + (dr)^2 - r^2)<br /> = \pi (2rdr + (dr)^2)[/tex]

This reasoning is correct, in my opinion.
When I was in school, the explanation I got from my teacher was that while doing integration we add infinitesimally small quantities. The quantity dr is very small and so [tex]dr^2[/tex] will be even smaller...like [tex]0.000001^2=0.000000000001[/tex] , so we neglect the [tex]dr^2[/tex] thing from that expression.
 
The simplest way to do the original problem is to say that the area of a small ring, of inner radius r and thickness dr is approximately [itex]2\pi r[/itex], the length of the ring, times dr, the thickness. That would be exactly correct if it were a rectangle of length [itex]2\pi r[/itex] and width dr. The point is that in the limit, as we change from Riemann sum to integral, that "approximation" becomes exact (the "[itex]dr^2[/itex] in your and Dick's reasoning) goes to 0 : the area is given by [itex]\int \pi r dr[/itex].

Can someone explain to my why this is a physics problem and not a mathematics problem?
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
908
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K