1 Attachment(s)

Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Y = 4x^{2} – x on (a) [0, 1]; (b) [-1, 1] ; (c) [1,3]

I have already done a and verified it is correct, however b and c I am unsure of. This is as far as I get on b, then I am not sure what to do next....

(b)

∆x = 2/n, We use right endpoints as evaluation points, x_{i} = -1 + 2i/n

(my small amount of work is shown in the picture I attached.)

Also, I worked this problem out on paper, but the end result seemed to way off, so I started over and only managed to confuse myself.

I guess I am really getting confused in the part where x_{i} = -1 + 2i/n, where usually it is a single term such as i/n. Anyways any help on this matter is greatly appreciated!

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

I think what I would do here, is instead of working out 3 separate sums, I would use the interval [*a*,*b*], to derive a formula for any interval. Then we can plug in the intervals we are given.

We will have:

Hence:

Thus, we find:

Now it's simply a matter of using the given values to answer parts a), b) and c). (Nod)

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Thank you MarkFL2!! I just 'tested' your derived formula with my known correct answer for a and it was spot on! You are a life saver! Thank you!!! I will post my answers for b and c in a moment to see if I did them correctly. Thanks again!!

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

(b)

(4(1^3 - (-1)^3)/3) + (((-1)^2 - 1^2)/2)

= 8/3 + 0/2.....but doesnt this create an undefined answer or null answer because of 0/2?

or is it simply 8/3?

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

(c)

(4(3^3 - 1^3)/3) + ((1^2 - 3^2)/2)

= 104/3 - 8/2

= 92/3

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Yes, b) is 8/3 and c) is 92/3.

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**MarkFL2** Thus, we find:

I am trying to use your method for a different formula, but once I reach the point above, I get stuck.

How are you coming up with that whole last line I quoted. I just don't get how that all factors down to the final equation. I mean it definitely gave me the correct answer for the other problems. But when trying to mimic this formula for a different (but similar equation) I just do not understand how to factor out this last part. Would you be so kind as to explain that last part a bit further? Thank you so much (in advance!) for your taking the time to help me!

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Ah, nevermind....I think I see what mistake I have made....In my calculations I forgot to factor in the (b-a) at the beginning. Makes quite a bit of difference! (Giggle)

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Hey, I am glad to see you taking the generalized approach! Not only is it less work in the end, but it forces you to use more algebra up front. :D

edit: I will be glad to explain any step I made that is not clear.

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

If I were to look at my set of assigned problems and see several functions of the same type (linear, quadratic, etc.) I might be tempted to generalize not only for the intervals, but for the functions as well.(Nerd)

2 Attachment(s)

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**MarkFL2** Hey, I am glad to see you taking the generalized approach! Not only is it less work in the end, but it forces you to use more algebra up front. :D

edit: I will be glad to explain any step I made that is not clear.

Well, regardless of the "Eureka" moment I had (Giggle), I think I may have to take you up on the offer to explain a bit further.

I will post the new equation I am working on and my attempt to work out my derived formula, and the answer that gives.

I will also show my original attempt to solve the problem (before I attempted your better method). As you might already guess, my two answers did not match, which tells me I did one or the other incorrectly! (Worried)

So here is the equation i have been trying to derive:

y = x^{2} + 3x on [0, 1]

I have attached my work in pic files and they are labeled accordingly.

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

In your first attempt, I am with you up to this point:

Now, I would simplify as follows:

Now, what is the limit of this sum as ?

I am going to look over your more generalized approach next.

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

In your second approach, you actually made the same error that you made in your first approach. I am with you up to this point:

Now, when you took the limit as you used a denominator of 6 for the last term within the parentheses, when it should be a 3, do you see why?

I will let you rework this on your own once you understand why you need a 3 there. Everything else you did is correct except for that. (Rock)

edit: If you have a bunch of quadratic functions, you may want to generalize further and use on . (Hi)

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**MarkFL2** In your first attempt, I am with you up to this point:

Now, I would simplify as follows:

Now, what is the limit of this sum as

?

I am going to look over your more generalized approach next.

Ah, thank you for the clarification on that part. Simplifying it does help. After doing so, I come up with:

Re: Use Riemann sums and a limit to compute the exact area under the curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**MarkFL2** In your second approach, you actually made the same error that you made in your first approach. I am with you up to this point:

Now, when you took the limit as

you used a denominator of 6 for the last term within the parentheses, when it should be a 3, do you see why?

I will let you rework this on your own once you understand why you need a 3 there. Everything else you did is correct except for that. (Rock)

edit: If you have a bunch of quadratic functions, you may want to generalize further and use

on

. (Hi)

I do not see why it should be a 3, at least not yet...I am now reworking the problem at this point and will let you know if I cannot figure out why it should be a 3...thanks for all your help and guidance thus far! :)

Edit: So, yeah, I see it now....2/6 reduces to 1/3....Im gonna chalk that up to being sleep deprived! (Cool)