Areas And Distances (Intro. to Definite Integral)

In summary: Right, for some reason I have difficulty applying this, though. So for simplicity-sake let's say we use y = x2 over the interval [0, 6], with only 2 left rectangles.I would have that my A = 3[f(0) + f(3)]. This would mean that x1 = 0 and x2 = 3in the summation formula, correct? Giving:##\sum_{i = 1}^2 f(x_i)\Delta x##NOT##\sum_{i = 0}^1 f(x_i)\Delta x##Where ##Δx## =...
  • #1
in the rye
83
6
Hey everyone,

Today in my Calculus 1 lecture we covered Areas and Distances, which serves as a prequel to the definite integral in my book. I am confused on some notation the book uses, and I cannot seem to find a clear explanation anywhere that I look.

n
∑ f(xi) ΔX ≅ A
i=1

First, let me explain this how I understand it, then correct me where I am wrong.

I understand this this is a simple way of saying that the approximate area under your line. And I know what the summation means.

My confusion is over the xi, and the start/end point. I know that f(xi) is defining the height of your rectangle based on the x value you chose in your x sub-interval. However, I'm confused with the relation of i=1 and n to this point. Say we have f(x) = x2. If we used this formula with left rectangles, one of our 'i's would have to be at 0. Does this mean that we alter the formula to say(?):

n
∑ f(xi-1) ΔX ≅ A
i=1

or

n
∑ f(xi) ΔX ≅ A
i=0

For some reason this is just confusing the hell out of me. My book really doesn't clarify this enough, and i know in the future this will be important for Cal 2, so I want to get a handle on it now. A tutor said told me you would have to change it to one of these formulas, but to me, that doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the formula just remain the same, but have f(x1) = 0?

It makes no sense to me why you would write it as either of the two methods the tutor told me because it would mean you're creating an interval that doesn't exist. Interval 0 doesn't exist, where in my mind interval 1 would be f(0) = 0 giving your sub interval area as ΔX(0)2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
in the rye said:
Hey everyone,

Today in my Calculus 1 lecture we covered Areas and Distances, which serves as a prequel to the definite integral in my book. I am confused on some notation the book uses, and I cannot seem to find a clear explanation anywhere that I look.

n
∑ f(xi) ΔX ≅ A
i=1

First, let me explain this how I understand it, then correct me where I am wrong.

I understand this this is a simple way of saying that the approximate area under your line. And I know what the summation means.

My confusion is over the xi, and the start/end point. I know that f(xi) is defining the height of your rectangle based on the x value you chose in your x sub-interval. However, I'm confused with the relation of i=1 and n to this point. Say we have f(x) = x2. If we used this formula with left rectangles, one of our 'i's would have to be at 0. Does this mean that we alter the formula to say(?):

n
∑ f(xi-1) ΔX ≅ A
i=1

or

n
∑ f(xi) ΔX ≅ A
i=0

For some reason this is just confusing the hell out of me. My book really doesn't clarify this enough, and i know in the future this will be important for Cal 2, so I want to get a handle on it now. A tutor said told me you would have to change it to one of these formulas, but to me, that doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the formula just remain the same, but have f(x1) = 0?
In the first summation you show, it is implied that some interval [a, b] is divided up into n subintervals. ##x_1## is some point in the first subinterval, ##x_2## is some point in the second subinterval, and so on, with one ##x_i## in each subinterval.
 
  • #3
Mark44 said:
In the first summation you show, it is implied that some interval [a, b] is divided up into n subintervals. ##x_1## is some point in the first subinterval, ##x_2## is some point in the second subinterval, and so on, with one ##x_i## in each subinterval.

So I am correct in thinking that x0 doesn't exist using the summation formula, correct? I edited the ending of my comment, which may expand my confusion
 
  • #4
in the rye said:
So I am correct in thinking that x0 doesn't exist using the summation formula, correct? I edited the ending of my comment, which may expand my confusion
Let me correct your first summation:
##\sum_{i = 1}^n f(x_i)\Delta x##
Here ##x_i## is some point in the i-th subinterval.
 
  • #5
Mark44 said:
Let me correct your first summation:
##\sum_{i = 1}^n f(x_i)\Delta x##
Here ##x_i## is some point in the i-th subinterval.

Right, for some reason I have difficulty applying this, though. So for simplicity-sake let's say we use y = x2 over the interval [0, 6], with only 2 left rectangles.I would have that my A = 3[f(0) + f(3)]. This would mean that x1 = 0 and x2 = 3in the summation formula, correct? Giving:##\sum_{i = 1}^2 f(x_i)\Delta x##

NOT

##\sum_{i = 0}^1 f(x_i)\Delta x##

Where ##Δx## = 3
 
  • #6
in the rye said:
Right, for some reason I have difficulty applying this, though. So for simplicity-sake let's say we use y = x2, over the interval [0, 6], with only 2 left rectangles.I would have that my A = 3[f(0) + f(3)]. This would mean that x1 = 0 and x2 = 3 in the summation formula, correct? Giving:##\sum_{i = 1}^2 f(x_i)\Delta x##

NOT

##\sum_{i = 0}^1 f(x_i)\Delta x##

Where ##Δx## = 3
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes in the rye

Related to Areas And Distances (Intro. to Definite Integral)

What is the concept of area under a curve?

The area under a curve refers to the area enclosed between a curve and the x-axis on a graph. It is a measure of the region bounded by the curve and the x-axis, and can be calculated using definite integrals.

How is the definite integral used to calculate area?

The definite integral is used to find the area under a curve by calculating the sum of infinitely small rectangles that make up the region. It involves taking the limit of the sum as the width of the rectangles approaches 0, resulting in an accurate calculation of the area.

What is the difference between a definite integral and an indefinite integral?

A definite integral has specific limits of integration and results in a numerical value, whereas an indefinite integral does not have limits and results in a function. In other words, a definite integral calculates the area under a curve, while an indefinite integral calculates the antiderivative of a function.

Can definite integrals be used to find the distance traveled by an object?

Yes, definite integrals can be used to find the distance traveled by an object as it moves along a certain path. By calculating the area under the velocity-time curve, the definite integral can determine the total distance traveled by the object.

What are some real-world applications of definite integrals in terms of areas and distances?

Definite integrals have various real-world applications, including calculating the area of irregular shapes, finding the volume of objects with curved surfaces, determining the distance traveled by moving objects, and estimating the amount of material needed for construction or manufacturing processes.

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
366
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Calculus
Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top