Did you forget to square the z in your equation for the cone? Assuming you did. Due to the symmetry of the region, it's easier to do this in spherical coordinates:
Consider a region in space bounded above by the unit spherex^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 1
and below by the cone z = sqrt(x^2 + y^2)
I have been trying to get my head around this. It has been so long since i have last done this stuff. am i right in thinking that I take the triple integration of one and subtract the other?
can someone give me an example of what my problem should look like? i.e. showing everything including upper and lower limits.
ojones has already told you how to do it. The sphere, , in spherical coordinates, is and the cone, z^2= x^2+ y^2, in spherical coordinates is which reduces to or simply since must be between 0 and . The volume inside the sphere, above the cone, is given by
That is exactly what ojones told you yesterday!
Actually, if ojones had not suggesed spherical coordinates, I would have been inclined to use cylindrical coordinates for the first problem and certainly for this one. In cylindrical coordinates, the equation of the sphere is and of the cone, z= r. Those intersect where so at . At that z, the equation of the sphere becomes or , .
The volume under the sphere, above the plane of intersection of the cone and sphere, is .
I do this for a few reasons: the first of which is cylindrical co-ordinates is simpler in that it only has 2 bounds, theta and radius, of course we have a dz integral but this is very easily computed that we don't even need to set it up. As opposed to phi, theta and P that spherical co-ordinates introduce. Also, spherical co-ordinates involve a very clumsy dV (at least in my opinion). The second thing is that cyldrincal co-ordinates are easier to visualize and interpret and most problems involving spheres and such are easier to do with cylindrical co-ordinates!
As for generally finding the volume bounded by a sphere and some shape (a cone, a plane, a cylinder, etc) we are best served by a diagram. Of course, most of us suck as graphing 3D objects (I am horrible) but we should be able to identify rudementary shapes such as a sphere, cylinder, cone, plane, parabola, etc.
Say I want the volume bounded by
Do I know how to graph that? Absolutely not, but I do know that they both involve parabolas in the XY plain (note the combination of ) and since one is negative and one is posative, they must be parabolas interesecting eachother. We can then see that our upper z bound will be
And this is all we really need to do. Of course, this type of analysis isn't good for odd looking shapes and for those I go back to the definition of the triple integral
We simply fit the above form in whatever way we see fit by letting x,y equal 0 at specific times and find what z function is greater on the interval. Naturally this will only work for 95% of the cases because some are actually cancelled out by symetry and if you can't draw the object you are SOL in this case. But that is a rarity and we can't really be expected to see that, because I know professors who have a hard time computing those kinds of cases and it's unlikely they would expect students to know. Unless they provide the graph to begin with!