Derivative as a rate measurer
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I studied about the application of derivatives as they help in measuring rate of change.
For example :-
Let $A$ be area of a circle of radius $r$
$$A = pi cdot r^2$$
then
$$frac dAdr= 2 pi cdot r $$
Suppose we have to find rate of change of area w.r.t to radius
at $r = 5 text cm$ .
Then
$$left(frac dAdrright)_r=5= 10 pitext cm^2/textcm $$
My question is:
Does our final answer mean that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 textcm$ to $6 textcm$, the change in area is equal to $ 10pitextcm^2 $,
i.e., the area of circle at $6 textcm = textarea of circle at 5 textcm + 10pi textcm^2 $?
geometry derivatives applications
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I studied about the application of derivatives as they help in measuring rate of change.
For example :-
Let $A$ be area of a circle of radius $r$
$$A = pi cdot r^2$$
then
$$frac dAdr= 2 pi cdot r $$
Suppose we have to find rate of change of area w.r.t to radius
at $r = 5 text cm$ .
Then
$$left(frac dAdrright)_r=5= 10 pitext cm^2/textcm $$
My question is:
Does our final answer mean that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 textcm$ to $6 textcm$, the change in area is equal to $ 10pitextcm^2 $,
i.e., the area of circle at $6 textcm = textarea of circle at 5 textcm + 10pi textcm^2 $?
geometry derivatives applications
But area $A$ at $6 text cm$ is $pi 36 text cm^2$ while area at $5 text cm$ is $pi 25 text cm^2$
â Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 3 at 13:48
1
Not quite. It means that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 rm cm$ to $(5+epsilon) rm cm$, the area of the circle changes by approximately $10piepsilon rm cm^2$, and the approximation is more accurate the smaller $epsilon$ is. In your example, $epsilon=1$, which is not very small, so the estimated change in area, $10pi rm cm^2$, is only moderately close to the actual change of area, $11pi rm cm^2$.
â Rahul
Sep 3 at 13:51
@Rahul what does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:49
1
Your $10pi cm^2/cm$ is often called a "first order approximation". More correctly, together with the information $A(5) = 25pi$, it is $A(6)approx 25pi + 10pi$ which is a first order approximation of $A(6)$. It is the best approximation to $A(6)$ that you can make knowing only $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$.
â Arthur
Sep 3 at 16:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I studied about the application of derivatives as they help in measuring rate of change.
For example :-
Let $A$ be area of a circle of radius $r$
$$A = pi cdot r^2$$
then
$$frac dAdr= 2 pi cdot r $$
Suppose we have to find rate of change of area w.r.t to radius
at $r = 5 text cm$ .
Then
$$left(frac dAdrright)_r=5= 10 pitext cm^2/textcm $$
My question is:
Does our final answer mean that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 textcm$ to $6 textcm$, the change in area is equal to $ 10pitextcm^2 $,
i.e., the area of circle at $6 textcm = textarea of circle at 5 textcm + 10pi textcm^2 $?
geometry derivatives applications
I studied about the application of derivatives as they help in measuring rate of change.
For example :-
Let $A$ be area of a circle of radius $r$
$$A = pi cdot r^2$$
then
$$frac dAdr= 2 pi cdot r $$
Suppose we have to find rate of change of area w.r.t to radius
at $r = 5 text cm$ .
Then
$$left(frac dAdrright)_r=5= 10 pitext cm^2/textcm $$
My question is:
Does our final answer mean that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 textcm$ to $6 textcm$, the change in area is equal to $ 10pitextcm^2 $,
i.e., the area of circle at $6 textcm = textarea of circle at 5 textcm + 10pi textcm^2 $?
geometry derivatives applications
geometry derivatives applications
edited Sep 3 at 18:02
Michael Hardy
206k23187466
206k23187466
asked Sep 3 at 13:44
JIM
385
385
But area $A$ at $6 text cm$ is $pi 36 text cm^2$ while area at $5 text cm$ is $pi 25 text cm^2$
â Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 3 at 13:48
1
Not quite. It means that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 rm cm$ to $(5+epsilon) rm cm$, the area of the circle changes by approximately $10piepsilon rm cm^2$, and the approximation is more accurate the smaller $epsilon$ is. In your example, $epsilon=1$, which is not very small, so the estimated change in area, $10pi rm cm^2$, is only moderately close to the actual change of area, $11pi rm cm^2$.
â Rahul
Sep 3 at 13:51
@Rahul what does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:49
1
Your $10pi cm^2/cm$ is often called a "first order approximation". More correctly, together with the information $A(5) = 25pi$, it is $A(6)approx 25pi + 10pi$ which is a first order approximation of $A(6)$. It is the best approximation to $A(6)$ that you can make knowing only $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$.
â Arthur
Sep 3 at 16:14
add a comment |Â
But area $A$ at $6 text cm$ is $pi 36 text cm^2$ while area at $5 text cm$ is $pi 25 text cm^2$
â Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 3 at 13:48
1
Not quite. It means that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 rm cm$ to $(5+epsilon) rm cm$, the area of the circle changes by approximately $10piepsilon rm cm^2$, and the approximation is more accurate the smaller $epsilon$ is. In your example, $epsilon=1$, which is not very small, so the estimated change in area, $10pi rm cm^2$, is only moderately close to the actual change of area, $11pi rm cm^2$.
â Rahul
Sep 3 at 13:51
@Rahul what does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:49
1
Your $10pi cm^2/cm$ is often called a "first order approximation". More correctly, together with the information $A(5) = 25pi$, it is $A(6)approx 25pi + 10pi$ which is a first order approximation of $A(6)$. It is the best approximation to $A(6)$ that you can make knowing only $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$.
â Arthur
Sep 3 at 16:14
But area $A$ at $6 text cm$ is $pi 36 text cm^2$ while area at $5 text cm$ is $pi 25 text cm^2$
â Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 3 at 13:48
But area $A$ at $6 text cm$ is $pi 36 text cm^2$ while area at $5 text cm$ is $pi 25 text cm^2$
â Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 3 at 13:48
1
1
Not quite. It means that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 rm cm$ to $(5+epsilon) rm cm$, the area of the circle changes by approximately $10piepsilon rm cm^2$, and the approximation is more accurate the smaller $epsilon$ is. In your example, $epsilon=1$, which is not very small, so the estimated change in area, $10pi rm cm^2$, is only moderately close to the actual change of area, $11pi rm cm^2$.
â Rahul
Sep 3 at 13:51
Not quite. It means that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 rm cm$ to $(5+epsilon) rm cm$, the area of the circle changes by approximately $10piepsilon rm cm^2$, and the approximation is more accurate the smaller $epsilon$ is. In your example, $epsilon=1$, which is not very small, so the estimated change in area, $10pi rm cm^2$, is only moderately close to the actual change of area, $11pi rm cm^2$.
â Rahul
Sep 3 at 13:51
@Rahul what does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:49
@Rahul what does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:49
1
1
Your $10pi cm^2/cm$ is often called a "first order approximation". More correctly, together with the information $A(5) = 25pi$, it is $A(6)approx 25pi + 10pi$ which is a first order approximation of $A(6)$. It is the best approximation to $A(6)$ that you can make knowing only $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$.
â Arthur
Sep 3 at 16:14
Your $10pi cm^2/cm$ is often called a "first order approximation". More correctly, together with the information $A(5) = 25pi$, it is $A(6)approx 25pi + 10pi$ which is a first order approximation of $A(6)$. It is the best approximation to $A(6)$ that you can make knowing only $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$.
â Arthur
Sep 3 at 16:14
add a comment |Â
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
No, but the intuition is correct.
$fracdAdr$ is the instantaneous rate of change at radius $r$. It means that if your radius is initially $r_0$ (say, 5cm), and you increase the radius by an infinitesimally small amount $dr$, the change in area will be given by $fracdAdr$ evaluated at $r_0$. At the new point $r_0 + dr$, the rate of change of area might be different (as it is in this case, where $fracdAdr$ depends on $r$. However, if your change in radius is small, your idea could be a good approximation for the change in area.
However, a larger change in area can be viewed as an aggregation of many small infinitesimal changes to $r$. This can be expressed as an integral, and so, the area change when you change the radius from $r_0$ to $r_0+1$ is given by
$$int_r_0^r_0+1 left(fracdAdrright) dr$$
It could be the case for some functions that the derivative is independent of $r$. In such a case, your idea will give exactly the correct answer, as the rate of change will not change with $r$. An example of such a function would be the rate of change of circumference of a circle with respect to the radius.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Yes it is true, but only for variations such that the linear approximation is acceptable.
For an increase of the radius of $0.001$ cm, the increase in area is approximated by$10cdotpicdot0.001=0.0314159265cdots$
Compare to the exact value $pi(5.001^2-5^2)=0.0314190681cdots$
In green, the linear approximation.
1
so does that mean if we take the change in radius tending to zero , we would start getting more accurate value ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:39
@JIM: this is what the plot illustrates.
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 14:45
What does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:48
@JIM: which one ?
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 15:31
the answer that I calculated in the question
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:34
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
All the previous answers explained the problem quite well. But according to your comment on these answer, you still have trouble understanding when to your approximation holds. I'll try to explain what values of h are acceptable to use your method.
Let's call $A(r)$ the area of a circle of radius $r$. We have $A_real=colorbluepi*rò$
If $h$ is small enough, you can have $A_approx(r_0+h) approx colorredA(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h$
But keep in mind that the real value of $A(r_0+h)$ is indeed:
beginalignA_real(r_0+h)=colorbluepi*(r_0+h)ò\
& =pi*(r_0ò+2r_0h+hò)\
& =colorbluepi*r_0ò+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò\
& =colorredA_real(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò \
& =colorredA_approx(r_0+h) +pi*hò
endalign
From there, the relative error between you result and the real one is:
$$E=fracA_real(r_0+h)-A_approx(r_0+h)A_real(r_0+h)$$
$$E=fracpi*hòpi*(r_0+h)ò$$
$$E=frachò(r_0+h)ò$$
So, you can see that as $h/r_0 rightarrow 0$, the error $E rightarrow 0$ too.
This means that as soon as $h/r_0$ is small enough, so is your error. Let see it this way, if you change 1cm in diameter on a circle of 10cm, and calculate the new area with your initial idea, your error will be more important that if you change 1cm on a 1m diameter circle. What only matter in this case is that the change is small enough versus the initial diameter.
The problem in your question is that you chose $h=1$ and $r_0=5$. You'll need $h$ to be smaller or $r_0$ to be greater
I made some calculation for circles of radius 5cm, 10cm, and 1m ($r_0=5,10,100$), with a changing radius of 1cm, you have errors of respectively: $2.7%$,$0.8%$ and $0.01%$ between the real area and the one calculated from your formula.
you really answered the question well !! And I am able to understand most part of question except from "From There . the relative error .............. is small enough , so is your error ."
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:19
I edited so it may appear clearer. Anyway, I just wrote this as a side answer because you kept asking if you $h$ was small enough. Please note that the whole $h/r_0$ thing is really specific to THAT case. The general reason why derivative can't be used that way is covered by other answers
â F.Carette
Sep 3 at 17:56
what i meant to ask was that how did you get the formula for E=Areal(r0+h)âÂÂAapprox(r0+h)Areal(r0+h)
â JIM
Sep 4 at 2:05
My bad. It's the basic formula for relative error. I Added the link in the main body.
â F.Carette
Sep 4 at 7:36
one more thing , after the calculation of error comes out to be E=h²/(r0+h)^2 , how do you get to know that as h/r0 tends to zero . E tends to 0 ??
â JIM
Sep 4 at 11:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
We should write
$$frac dAdcolorredr= 2 pi cdot r$$
No of course our final answer doaes not mean that when radius of circle changes from $5 cm$ to $6 cm$ then the change in area is equal to $10pi cm^2$, indeed derivatives are linear approximation and, since in that case the relationship between $A$ and $r$ is not linear, it means that
$$Delta A approx 10pi Delta r$$
and the approximation becomes better for smaller $Delta r$.
does this mea that derivatives hold true best for linear approximation ? Also what is Linear approximation ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:41
@JIM Yes exactly for a differentiable function they are the bestlinear approximation, that means that we are approximating locally the function with its tangent line at that point. By Taylor's expansion we can get better approximation using higher order terms.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 14:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Let$f: mathbbR rightarrowtail mathbbR$ be a function, and $a in textInt(textdom(f))$. Then the following statements are equivalent:
- $f$ is differentiable at $a$
- $exists xi in mathbbR$ and $exists eta: textdom(f) to mathbbR$ with $limlimits_x to a fraceta(x)x-a=0$, so that
$$f(x)=f(a)+xi(x-a)+eta(x)$$
and $xi=f'(a)$.
I think this equivalent definition of differentiability is more spectacular (and it's easier to generalize to the $mathbbR^n rightarrowtail mathbbR^m$ case), because we can intuitively see that $eta(x)$ is really small around $a$, so for $x approx a$ we have that
$$f(x) approx f(a) + xi(x-a)$$
In your case, if we let $A(r):=r^2 pi$, we have that $A'(r)=2r pi$
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+xi(r-r_0)+eta(r)$$
And of course, $xi=A'(r_0)=2r_0pi$:
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0rpi-2r_0^2 pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r) tag1$$
If we want to get $eta(r)$:
$$r^2 pi=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r)$$
$$r^2 pi+r_0^2pi-2r r_0 pi=eta(r)$$
$$eta(r)=(r-r_0)^2 pi$$
Using some numbers, we have that $A(5)=25 pi$, $A(5.1)=26.01 pi$, $A(50)=2500 pi$. If we try to approximate $A(5.1)$ and $A(50)$ with $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$, we can use the first equation (without $eta(r)$):
$$A(r) approx 10 r pi - 25 pi$$
we get that $A(5.1) approx 26 pi$ and $A(50) approx 475 pi$, while $eta(5.1)=0.01 pi$ and $eta(50)=2025 pi$. As you can see, it's quite good for $5.1$, but it's terrible for $50$.
This kind of linear approximation is really useful in physics, for example when you are dealing with a complicated system, you can't really solve the differential equation(s), but you can make the assumption that the change in the sought function (for example, the displacement-time function of a ball) is really small, so you can linearize the equation, and (probably) solve it.
1
Maybe the symbol $A$ is a little confusing here.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 15:43
@gimusi you're right.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 16:04
@Botond not able to understand a single word that you wrote !!
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:20
@JIM I extended my answer.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 17:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No, but you are on the right track.
The derivative you have found tells you that when the radius changes from $5$cm to $(5+h)$cm and $h$ is small then the area changes by approximately $10pi h$ square cm.
In your example you are taking $h=1$, which is not small, so the approximation isn't even close.
So what does the answer that I calculated actually means (if it does not mean change in area )??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:43
What you calculated is the approximation to the change in area you get by substituting $h=1$ in the approximation recipe the derivative provides. Whether that's a good approximation to the change depends on how large the derivative is and how big $h$ is relative to what matters in an application.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 14:46
In this case is my h correct ??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:09
There's no such thing as "the correct $h$". The smaller it is the better the approximation.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 21:32
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
To say that $left.dfracdAdrright|_r,=,5text cm = 10pitext cm$ means that if you multiply the rate of change of $r,$ at the point at which $r=5text cm,$ by $10pitext cm,$ you get the rate of change of $A$ at that point. But that does not mean that if $r$ grows by $1text cm,$ then $A$ will increase by $10pitext cm^2,$ because it won't continue changing at that same rate as $r$ changes.
Generally if $left.dfracdydxright|_x,=,a = b$ means that at the point where $x=a,$ the dependent variable $y$ is changing $a$ times as fast as the independent variable $x.$
add a comment |Â
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
No, but the intuition is correct.
$fracdAdr$ is the instantaneous rate of change at radius $r$. It means that if your radius is initially $r_0$ (say, 5cm), and you increase the radius by an infinitesimally small amount $dr$, the change in area will be given by $fracdAdr$ evaluated at $r_0$. At the new point $r_0 + dr$, the rate of change of area might be different (as it is in this case, where $fracdAdr$ depends on $r$. However, if your change in radius is small, your idea could be a good approximation for the change in area.
However, a larger change in area can be viewed as an aggregation of many small infinitesimal changes to $r$. This can be expressed as an integral, and so, the area change when you change the radius from $r_0$ to $r_0+1$ is given by
$$int_r_0^r_0+1 left(fracdAdrright) dr$$
It could be the case for some functions that the derivative is independent of $r$. In such a case, your idea will give exactly the correct answer, as the rate of change will not change with $r$. An example of such a function would be the rate of change of circumference of a circle with respect to the radius.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
No, but the intuition is correct.
$fracdAdr$ is the instantaneous rate of change at radius $r$. It means that if your radius is initially $r_0$ (say, 5cm), and you increase the radius by an infinitesimally small amount $dr$, the change in area will be given by $fracdAdr$ evaluated at $r_0$. At the new point $r_0 + dr$, the rate of change of area might be different (as it is in this case, where $fracdAdr$ depends on $r$. However, if your change in radius is small, your idea could be a good approximation for the change in area.
However, a larger change in area can be viewed as an aggregation of many small infinitesimal changes to $r$. This can be expressed as an integral, and so, the area change when you change the radius from $r_0$ to $r_0+1$ is given by
$$int_r_0^r_0+1 left(fracdAdrright) dr$$
It could be the case for some functions that the derivative is independent of $r$. In such a case, your idea will give exactly the correct answer, as the rate of change will not change with $r$. An example of such a function would be the rate of change of circumference of a circle with respect to the radius.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
No, but the intuition is correct.
$fracdAdr$ is the instantaneous rate of change at radius $r$. It means that if your radius is initially $r_0$ (say, 5cm), and you increase the radius by an infinitesimally small amount $dr$, the change in area will be given by $fracdAdr$ evaluated at $r_0$. At the new point $r_0 + dr$, the rate of change of area might be different (as it is in this case, where $fracdAdr$ depends on $r$. However, if your change in radius is small, your idea could be a good approximation for the change in area.
However, a larger change in area can be viewed as an aggregation of many small infinitesimal changes to $r$. This can be expressed as an integral, and so, the area change when you change the radius from $r_0$ to $r_0+1$ is given by
$$int_r_0^r_0+1 left(fracdAdrright) dr$$
It could be the case for some functions that the derivative is independent of $r$. In such a case, your idea will give exactly the correct answer, as the rate of change will not change with $r$. An example of such a function would be the rate of change of circumference of a circle with respect to the radius.
No, but the intuition is correct.
$fracdAdr$ is the instantaneous rate of change at radius $r$. It means that if your radius is initially $r_0$ (say, 5cm), and you increase the radius by an infinitesimally small amount $dr$, the change in area will be given by $fracdAdr$ evaluated at $r_0$. At the new point $r_0 + dr$, the rate of change of area might be different (as it is in this case, where $fracdAdr$ depends on $r$. However, if your change in radius is small, your idea could be a good approximation for the change in area.
However, a larger change in area can be viewed as an aggregation of many small infinitesimal changes to $r$. This can be expressed as an integral, and so, the area change when you change the radius from $r_0$ to $r_0+1$ is given by
$$int_r_0^r_0+1 left(fracdAdrright) dr$$
It could be the case for some functions that the derivative is independent of $r$. In such a case, your idea will give exactly the correct answer, as the rate of change will not change with $r$. An example of such a function would be the rate of change of circumference of a circle with respect to the radius.
answered Sep 3 at 13:52
GoodDeeds
10.2k21335
10.2k21335
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Yes it is true, but only for variations such that the linear approximation is acceptable.
For an increase of the radius of $0.001$ cm, the increase in area is approximated by$10cdotpicdot0.001=0.0314159265cdots$
Compare to the exact value $pi(5.001^2-5^2)=0.0314190681cdots$
In green, the linear approximation.
1
so does that mean if we take the change in radius tending to zero , we would start getting more accurate value ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:39
@JIM: this is what the plot illustrates.
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 14:45
What does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:48
@JIM: which one ?
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 15:31
the answer that I calculated in the question
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:34
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
Yes it is true, but only for variations such that the linear approximation is acceptable.
For an increase of the radius of $0.001$ cm, the increase in area is approximated by$10cdotpicdot0.001=0.0314159265cdots$
Compare to the exact value $pi(5.001^2-5^2)=0.0314190681cdots$
In green, the linear approximation.
1
so does that mean if we take the change in radius tending to zero , we would start getting more accurate value ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:39
@JIM: this is what the plot illustrates.
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 14:45
What does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:48
@JIM: which one ?
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 15:31
the answer that I calculated in the question
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:34
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Yes it is true, but only for variations such that the linear approximation is acceptable.
For an increase of the radius of $0.001$ cm, the increase in area is approximated by$10cdotpicdot0.001=0.0314159265cdots$
Compare to the exact value $pi(5.001^2-5^2)=0.0314190681cdots$
In green, the linear approximation.
Yes it is true, but only for variations such that the linear approximation is acceptable.
For an increase of the radius of $0.001$ cm, the increase in area is approximated by$10cdotpicdot0.001=0.0314159265cdots$
Compare to the exact value $pi(5.001^2-5^2)=0.0314190681cdots$
In green, the linear approximation.
answered Sep 3 at 13:54
Yves Daoust
116k667211
116k667211
1
so does that mean if we take the change in radius tending to zero , we would start getting more accurate value ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:39
@JIM: this is what the plot illustrates.
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 14:45
What does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:48
@JIM: which one ?
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 15:31
the answer that I calculated in the question
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:34
 |Â
show 5 more comments
1
so does that mean if we take the change in radius tending to zero , we would start getting more accurate value ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:39
@JIM: this is what the plot illustrates.
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 14:45
What does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:48
@JIM: which one ?
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 15:31
the answer that I calculated in the question
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:34
1
1
so does that mean if we take the change in radius tending to zero , we would start getting more accurate value ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:39
so does that mean if we take the change in radius tending to zero , we would start getting more accurate value ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:39
@JIM: this is what the plot illustrates.
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 14:45
@JIM: this is what the plot illustrates.
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 14:45
What does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:48
What does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:48
@JIM: which one ?
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 15:31
@JIM: which one ?
â Yves Daoust
Sep 3 at 15:31
the answer that I calculated in the question
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:34
the answer that I calculated in the question
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:34
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
All the previous answers explained the problem quite well. But according to your comment on these answer, you still have trouble understanding when to your approximation holds. I'll try to explain what values of h are acceptable to use your method.
Let's call $A(r)$ the area of a circle of radius $r$. We have $A_real=colorbluepi*rò$
If $h$ is small enough, you can have $A_approx(r_0+h) approx colorredA(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h$
But keep in mind that the real value of $A(r_0+h)$ is indeed:
beginalignA_real(r_0+h)=colorbluepi*(r_0+h)ò\
& =pi*(r_0ò+2r_0h+hò)\
& =colorbluepi*r_0ò+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò\
& =colorredA_real(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò \
& =colorredA_approx(r_0+h) +pi*hò
endalign
From there, the relative error between you result and the real one is:
$$E=fracA_real(r_0+h)-A_approx(r_0+h)A_real(r_0+h)$$
$$E=fracpi*hòpi*(r_0+h)ò$$
$$E=frachò(r_0+h)ò$$
So, you can see that as $h/r_0 rightarrow 0$, the error $E rightarrow 0$ too.
This means that as soon as $h/r_0$ is small enough, so is your error. Let see it this way, if you change 1cm in diameter on a circle of 10cm, and calculate the new area with your initial idea, your error will be more important that if you change 1cm on a 1m diameter circle. What only matter in this case is that the change is small enough versus the initial diameter.
The problem in your question is that you chose $h=1$ and $r_0=5$. You'll need $h$ to be smaller or $r_0$ to be greater
I made some calculation for circles of radius 5cm, 10cm, and 1m ($r_0=5,10,100$), with a changing radius of 1cm, you have errors of respectively: $2.7%$,$0.8%$ and $0.01%$ between the real area and the one calculated from your formula.
you really answered the question well !! And I am able to understand most part of question except from "From There . the relative error .............. is small enough , so is your error ."
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:19
I edited so it may appear clearer. Anyway, I just wrote this as a side answer because you kept asking if you $h$ was small enough. Please note that the whole $h/r_0$ thing is really specific to THAT case. The general reason why derivative can't be used that way is covered by other answers
â F.Carette
Sep 3 at 17:56
what i meant to ask was that how did you get the formula for E=Areal(r0+h)âÂÂAapprox(r0+h)Areal(r0+h)
â JIM
Sep 4 at 2:05
My bad. It's the basic formula for relative error. I Added the link in the main body.
â F.Carette
Sep 4 at 7:36
one more thing , after the calculation of error comes out to be E=h²/(r0+h)^2 , how do you get to know that as h/r0 tends to zero . E tends to 0 ??
â JIM
Sep 4 at 11:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
All the previous answers explained the problem quite well. But according to your comment on these answer, you still have trouble understanding when to your approximation holds. I'll try to explain what values of h are acceptable to use your method.
Let's call $A(r)$ the area of a circle of radius $r$. We have $A_real=colorbluepi*rò$
If $h$ is small enough, you can have $A_approx(r_0+h) approx colorredA(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h$
But keep in mind that the real value of $A(r_0+h)$ is indeed:
beginalignA_real(r_0+h)=colorbluepi*(r_0+h)ò\
& =pi*(r_0ò+2r_0h+hò)\
& =colorbluepi*r_0ò+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò\
& =colorredA_real(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò \
& =colorredA_approx(r_0+h) +pi*hò
endalign
From there, the relative error between you result and the real one is:
$$E=fracA_real(r_0+h)-A_approx(r_0+h)A_real(r_0+h)$$
$$E=fracpi*hòpi*(r_0+h)ò$$
$$E=frachò(r_0+h)ò$$
So, you can see that as $h/r_0 rightarrow 0$, the error $E rightarrow 0$ too.
This means that as soon as $h/r_0$ is small enough, so is your error. Let see it this way, if you change 1cm in diameter on a circle of 10cm, and calculate the new area with your initial idea, your error will be more important that if you change 1cm on a 1m diameter circle. What only matter in this case is that the change is small enough versus the initial diameter.
The problem in your question is that you chose $h=1$ and $r_0=5$. You'll need $h$ to be smaller or $r_0$ to be greater
I made some calculation for circles of radius 5cm, 10cm, and 1m ($r_0=5,10,100$), with a changing radius of 1cm, you have errors of respectively: $2.7%$,$0.8%$ and $0.01%$ between the real area and the one calculated from your formula.
you really answered the question well !! And I am able to understand most part of question except from "From There . the relative error .............. is small enough , so is your error ."
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:19
I edited so it may appear clearer. Anyway, I just wrote this as a side answer because you kept asking if you $h$ was small enough. Please note that the whole $h/r_0$ thing is really specific to THAT case. The general reason why derivative can't be used that way is covered by other answers
â F.Carette
Sep 3 at 17:56
what i meant to ask was that how did you get the formula for E=Areal(r0+h)âÂÂAapprox(r0+h)Areal(r0+h)
â JIM
Sep 4 at 2:05
My bad. It's the basic formula for relative error. I Added the link in the main body.
â F.Carette
Sep 4 at 7:36
one more thing , after the calculation of error comes out to be E=h²/(r0+h)^2 , how do you get to know that as h/r0 tends to zero . E tends to 0 ??
â JIM
Sep 4 at 11:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
All the previous answers explained the problem quite well. But according to your comment on these answer, you still have trouble understanding when to your approximation holds. I'll try to explain what values of h are acceptable to use your method.
Let's call $A(r)$ the area of a circle of radius $r$. We have $A_real=colorbluepi*rò$
If $h$ is small enough, you can have $A_approx(r_0+h) approx colorredA(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h$
But keep in mind that the real value of $A(r_0+h)$ is indeed:
beginalignA_real(r_0+h)=colorbluepi*(r_0+h)ò\
& =pi*(r_0ò+2r_0h+hò)\
& =colorbluepi*r_0ò+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò\
& =colorredA_real(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò \
& =colorredA_approx(r_0+h) +pi*hò
endalign
From there, the relative error between you result and the real one is:
$$E=fracA_real(r_0+h)-A_approx(r_0+h)A_real(r_0+h)$$
$$E=fracpi*hòpi*(r_0+h)ò$$
$$E=frachò(r_0+h)ò$$
So, you can see that as $h/r_0 rightarrow 0$, the error $E rightarrow 0$ too.
This means that as soon as $h/r_0$ is small enough, so is your error. Let see it this way, if you change 1cm in diameter on a circle of 10cm, and calculate the new area with your initial idea, your error will be more important that if you change 1cm on a 1m diameter circle. What only matter in this case is that the change is small enough versus the initial diameter.
The problem in your question is that you chose $h=1$ and $r_0=5$. You'll need $h$ to be smaller or $r_0$ to be greater
I made some calculation for circles of radius 5cm, 10cm, and 1m ($r_0=5,10,100$), with a changing radius of 1cm, you have errors of respectively: $2.7%$,$0.8%$ and $0.01%$ between the real area and the one calculated from your formula.
All the previous answers explained the problem quite well. But according to your comment on these answer, you still have trouble understanding when to your approximation holds. I'll try to explain what values of h are acceptable to use your method.
Let's call $A(r)$ the area of a circle of radius $r$. We have $A_real=colorbluepi*rò$
If $h$ is small enough, you can have $A_approx(r_0+h) approx colorredA(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h$
But keep in mind that the real value of $A(r_0+h)$ is indeed:
beginalignA_real(r_0+h)=colorbluepi*(r_0+h)ò\
& =pi*(r_0ò+2r_0h+hò)\
& =colorbluepi*r_0ò+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò\
& =colorredA_real(r_0)+2*pi*r_0*h+pi*hò \
& =colorredA_approx(r_0+h) +pi*hò
endalign
From there, the relative error between you result and the real one is:
$$E=fracA_real(r_0+h)-A_approx(r_0+h)A_real(r_0+h)$$
$$E=fracpi*hòpi*(r_0+h)ò$$
$$E=frachò(r_0+h)ò$$
So, you can see that as $h/r_0 rightarrow 0$, the error $E rightarrow 0$ too.
This means that as soon as $h/r_0$ is small enough, so is your error. Let see it this way, if you change 1cm in diameter on a circle of 10cm, and calculate the new area with your initial idea, your error will be more important that if you change 1cm on a 1m diameter circle. What only matter in this case is that the change is small enough versus the initial diameter.
The problem in your question is that you chose $h=1$ and $r_0=5$. You'll need $h$ to be smaller or $r_0$ to be greater
I made some calculation for circles of radius 5cm, 10cm, and 1m ($r_0=5,10,100$), with a changing radius of 1cm, you have errors of respectively: $2.7%$,$0.8%$ and $0.01%$ between the real area and the one calculated from your formula.
edited Sep 4 at 6:25
answered Sep 3 at 16:06
F.Carette
6088
6088
you really answered the question well !! And I am able to understand most part of question except from "From There . the relative error .............. is small enough , so is your error ."
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:19
I edited so it may appear clearer. Anyway, I just wrote this as a side answer because you kept asking if you $h$ was small enough. Please note that the whole $h/r_0$ thing is really specific to THAT case. The general reason why derivative can't be used that way is covered by other answers
â F.Carette
Sep 3 at 17:56
what i meant to ask was that how did you get the formula for E=Areal(r0+h)âÂÂAapprox(r0+h)Areal(r0+h)
â JIM
Sep 4 at 2:05
My bad. It's the basic formula for relative error. I Added the link in the main body.
â F.Carette
Sep 4 at 7:36
one more thing , after the calculation of error comes out to be E=h²/(r0+h)^2 , how do you get to know that as h/r0 tends to zero . E tends to 0 ??
â JIM
Sep 4 at 11:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
you really answered the question well !! And I am able to understand most part of question except from "From There . the relative error .............. is small enough , so is your error ."
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:19
I edited so it may appear clearer. Anyway, I just wrote this as a side answer because you kept asking if you $h$ was small enough. Please note that the whole $h/r_0$ thing is really specific to THAT case. The general reason why derivative can't be used that way is covered by other answers
â F.Carette
Sep 3 at 17:56
what i meant to ask was that how did you get the formula for E=Areal(r0+h)âÂÂAapprox(r0+h)Areal(r0+h)
â JIM
Sep 4 at 2:05
My bad. It's the basic formula for relative error. I Added the link in the main body.
â F.Carette
Sep 4 at 7:36
one more thing , after the calculation of error comes out to be E=h²/(r0+h)^2 , how do you get to know that as h/r0 tends to zero . E tends to 0 ??
â JIM
Sep 4 at 11:59
you really answered the question well !! And I am able to understand most part of question except from "From There . the relative error .............. is small enough , so is your error ."
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:19
you really answered the question well !! And I am able to understand most part of question except from "From There . the relative error .............. is small enough , so is your error ."
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:19
I edited so it may appear clearer. Anyway, I just wrote this as a side answer because you kept asking if you $h$ was small enough. Please note that the whole $h/r_0$ thing is really specific to THAT case. The general reason why derivative can't be used that way is covered by other answers
â F.Carette
Sep 3 at 17:56
I edited so it may appear clearer. Anyway, I just wrote this as a side answer because you kept asking if you $h$ was small enough. Please note that the whole $h/r_0$ thing is really specific to THAT case. The general reason why derivative can't be used that way is covered by other answers
â F.Carette
Sep 3 at 17:56
what i meant to ask was that how did you get the formula for E=Areal(r0+h)âÂÂAapprox(r0+h)Areal(r0+h)
â JIM
Sep 4 at 2:05
what i meant to ask was that how did you get the formula for E=Areal(r0+h)âÂÂAapprox(r0+h)Areal(r0+h)
â JIM
Sep 4 at 2:05
My bad. It's the basic formula for relative error. I Added the link in the main body.
â F.Carette
Sep 4 at 7:36
My bad. It's the basic formula for relative error. I Added the link in the main body.
â F.Carette
Sep 4 at 7:36
one more thing , after the calculation of error comes out to be E=h²/(r0+h)^2 , how do you get to know that as h/r0 tends to zero . E tends to 0 ??
â JIM
Sep 4 at 11:59
one more thing , after the calculation of error comes out to be E=h²/(r0+h)^2 , how do you get to know that as h/r0 tends to zero . E tends to 0 ??
â JIM
Sep 4 at 11:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
We should write
$$frac dAdcolorredr= 2 pi cdot r$$
No of course our final answer doaes not mean that when radius of circle changes from $5 cm$ to $6 cm$ then the change in area is equal to $10pi cm^2$, indeed derivatives are linear approximation and, since in that case the relationship between $A$ and $r$ is not linear, it means that
$$Delta A approx 10pi Delta r$$
and the approximation becomes better for smaller $Delta r$.
does this mea that derivatives hold true best for linear approximation ? Also what is Linear approximation ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:41
@JIM Yes exactly for a differentiable function they are the bestlinear approximation, that means that we are approximating locally the function with its tangent line at that point. By Taylor's expansion we can get better approximation using higher order terms.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 14:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
We should write
$$frac dAdcolorredr= 2 pi cdot r$$
No of course our final answer doaes not mean that when radius of circle changes from $5 cm$ to $6 cm$ then the change in area is equal to $10pi cm^2$, indeed derivatives are linear approximation and, since in that case the relationship between $A$ and $r$ is not linear, it means that
$$Delta A approx 10pi Delta r$$
and the approximation becomes better for smaller $Delta r$.
does this mea that derivatives hold true best for linear approximation ? Also what is Linear approximation ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:41
@JIM Yes exactly for a differentiable function they are the bestlinear approximation, that means that we are approximating locally the function with its tangent line at that point. By Taylor's expansion we can get better approximation using higher order terms.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 14:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
We should write
$$frac dAdcolorredr= 2 pi cdot r$$
No of course our final answer doaes not mean that when radius of circle changes from $5 cm$ to $6 cm$ then the change in area is equal to $10pi cm^2$, indeed derivatives are linear approximation and, since in that case the relationship between $A$ and $r$ is not linear, it means that
$$Delta A approx 10pi Delta r$$
and the approximation becomes better for smaller $Delta r$.
We should write
$$frac dAdcolorredr= 2 pi cdot r$$
No of course our final answer doaes not mean that when radius of circle changes from $5 cm$ to $6 cm$ then the change in area is equal to $10pi cm^2$, indeed derivatives are linear approximation and, since in that case the relationship between $A$ and $r$ is not linear, it means that
$$Delta A approx 10pi Delta r$$
and the approximation becomes better for smaller $Delta r$.
answered Sep 3 at 13:49
gimusi
75.4k73889
75.4k73889
does this mea that derivatives hold true best for linear approximation ? Also what is Linear approximation ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:41
@JIM Yes exactly for a differentiable function they are the bestlinear approximation, that means that we are approximating locally the function with its tangent line at that point. By Taylor's expansion we can get better approximation using higher order terms.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 14:49
add a comment |Â
does this mea that derivatives hold true best for linear approximation ? Also what is Linear approximation ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:41
@JIM Yes exactly for a differentiable function they are the bestlinear approximation, that means that we are approximating locally the function with its tangent line at that point. By Taylor's expansion we can get better approximation using higher order terms.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 14:49
does this mea that derivatives hold true best for linear approximation ? Also what is Linear approximation ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:41
does this mea that derivatives hold true best for linear approximation ? Also what is Linear approximation ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:41
@JIM Yes exactly for a differentiable function they are the bestlinear approximation, that means that we are approximating locally the function with its tangent line at that point. By Taylor's expansion we can get better approximation using higher order terms.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 14:49
@JIM Yes exactly for a differentiable function they are the bestlinear approximation, that means that we are approximating locally the function with its tangent line at that point. By Taylor's expansion we can get better approximation using higher order terms.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 14:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Let$f: mathbbR rightarrowtail mathbbR$ be a function, and $a in textInt(textdom(f))$. Then the following statements are equivalent:
- $f$ is differentiable at $a$
- $exists xi in mathbbR$ and $exists eta: textdom(f) to mathbbR$ with $limlimits_x to a fraceta(x)x-a=0$, so that
$$f(x)=f(a)+xi(x-a)+eta(x)$$
and $xi=f'(a)$.
I think this equivalent definition of differentiability is more spectacular (and it's easier to generalize to the $mathbbR^n rightarrowtail mathbbR^m$ case), because we can intuitively see that $eta(x)$ is really small around $a$, so for $x approx a$ we have that
$$f(x) approx f(a) + xi(x-a)$$
In your case, if we let $A(r):=r^2 pi$, we have that $A'(r)=2r pi$
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+xi(r-r_0)+eta(r)$$
And of course, $xi=A'(r_0)=2r_0pi$:
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0rpi-2r_0^2 pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r) tag1$$
If we want to get $eta(r)$:
$$r^2 pi=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r)$$
$$r^2 pi+r_0^2pi-2r r_0 pi=eta(r)$$
$$eta(r)=(r-r_0)^2 pi$$
Using some numbers, we have that $A(5)=25 pi$, $A(5.1)=26.01 pi$, $A(50)=2500 pi$. If we try to approximate $A(5.1)$ and $A(50)$ with $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$, we can use the first equation (without $eta(r)$):
$$A(r) approx 10 r pi - 25 pi$$
we get that $A(5.1) approx 26 pi$ and $A(50) approx 475 pi$, while $eta(5.1)=0.01 pi$ and $eta(50)=2025 pi$. As you can see, it's quite good for $5.1$, but it's terrible for $50$.
This kind of linear approximation is really useful in physics, for example when you are dealing with a complicated system, you can't really solve the differential equation(s), but you can make the assumption that the change in the sought function (for example, the displacement-time function of a ball) is really small, so you can linearize the equation, and (probably) solve it.
1
Maybe the symbol $A$ is a little confusing here.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 15:43
@gimusi you're right.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 16:04
@Botond not able to understand a single word that you wrote !!
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:20
@JIM I extended my answer.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 17:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Let$f: mathbbR rightarrowtail mathbbR$ be a function, and $a in textInt(textdom(f))$. Then the following statements are equivalent:
- $f$ is differentiable at $a$
- $exists xi in mathbbR$ and $exists eta: textdom(f) to mathbbR$ with $limlimits_x to a fraceta(x)x-a=0$, so that
$$f(x)=f(a)+xi(x-a)+eta(x)$$
and $xi=f'(a)$.
I think this equivalent definition of differentiability is more spectacular (and it's easier to generalize to the $mathbbR^n rightarrowtail mathbbR^m$ case), because we can intuitively see that $eta(x)$ is really small around $a$, so for $x approx a$ we have that
$$f(x) approx f(a) + xi(x-a)$$
In your case, if we let $A(r):=r^2 pi$, we have that $A'(r)=2r pi$
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+xi(r-r_0)+eta(r)$$
And of course, $xi=A'(r_0)=2r_0pi$:
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0rpi-2r_0^2 pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r) tag1$$
If we want to get $eta(r)$:
$$r^2 pi=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r)$$
$$r^2 pi+r_0^2pi-2r r_0 pi=eta(r)$$
$$eta(r)=(r-r_0)^2 pi$$
Using some numbers, we have that $A(5)=25 pi$, $A(5.1)=26.01 pi$, $A(50)=2500 pi$. If we try to approximate $A(5.1)$ and $A(50)$ with $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$, we can use the first equation (without $eta(r)$):
$$A(r) approx 10 r pi - 25 pi$$
we get that $A(5.1) approx 26 pi$ and $A(50) approx 475 pi$, while $eta(5.1)=0.01 pi$ and $eta(50)=2025 pi$. As you can see, it's quite good for $5.1$, but it's terrible for $50$.
This kind of linear approximation is really useful in physics, for example when you are dealing with a complicated system, you can't really solve the differential equation(s), but you can make the assumption that the change in the sought function (for example, the displacement-time function of a ball) is really small, so you can linearize the equation, and (probably) solve it.
1
Maybe the symbol $A$ is a little confusing here.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 15:43
@gimusi you're right.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 16:04
@Botond not able to understand a single word that you wrote !!
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:20
@JIM I extended my answer.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 17:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Let$f: mathbbR rightarrowtail mathbbR$ be a function, and $a in textInt(textdom(f))$. Then the following statements are equivalent:
- $f$ is differentiable at $a$
- $exists xi in mathbbR$ and $exists eta: textdom(f) to mathbbR$ with $limlimits_x to a fraceta(x)x-a=0$, so that
$$f(x)=f(a)+xi(x-a)+eta(x)$$
and $xi=f'(a)$.
I think this equivalent definition of differentiability is more spectacular (and it's easier to generalize to the $mathbbR^n rightarrowtail mathbbR^m$ case), because we can intuitively see that $eta(x)$ is really small around $a$, so for $x approx a$ we have that
$$f(x) approx f(a) + xi(x-a)$$
In your case, if we let $A(r):=r^2 pi$, we have that $A'(r)=2r pi$
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+xi(r-r_0)+eta(r)$$
And of course, $xi=A'(r_0)=2r_0pi$:
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0rpi-2r_0^2 pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r) tag1$$
If we want to get $eta(r)$:
$$r^2 pi=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r)$$
$$r^2 pi+r_0^2pi-2r r_0 pi=eta(r)$$
$$eta(r)=(r-r_0)^2 pi$$
Using some numbers, we have that $A(5)=25 pi$, $A(5.1)=26.01 pi$, $A(50)=2500 pi$. If we try to approximate $A(5.1)$ and $A(50)$ with $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$, we can use the first equation (without $eta(r)$):
$$A(r) approx 10 r pi - 25 pi$$
we get that $A(5.1) approx 26 pi$ and $A(50) approx 475 pi$, while $eta(5.1)=0.01 pi$ and $eta(50)=2025 pi$. As you can see, it's quite good for $5.1$, but it's terrible for $50$.
This kind of linear approximation is really useful in physics, for example when you are dealing with a complicated system, you can't really solve the differential equation(s), but you can make the assumption that the change in the sought function (for example, the displacement-time function of a ball) is really small, so you can linearize the equation, and (probably) solve it.
Let$f: mathbbR rightarrowtail mathbbR$ be a function, and $a in textInt(textdom(f))$. Then the following statements are equivalent:
- $f$ is differentiable at $a$
- $exists xi in mathbbR$ and $exists eta: textdom(f) to mathbbR$ with $limlimits_x to a fraceta(x)x-a=0$, so that
$$f(x)=f(a)+xi(x-a)+eta(x)$$
and $xi=f'(a)$.
I think this equivalent definition of differentiability is more spectacular (and it's easier to generalize to the $mathbbR^n rightarrowtail mathbbR^m$ case), because we can intuitively see that $eta(x)$ is really small around $a$, so for $x approx a$ we have that
$$f(x) approx f(a) + xi(x-a)$$
In your case, if we let $A(r):=r^2 pi$, we have that $A'(r)=2r pi$
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+xi(r-r_0)+eta(r)$$
And of course, $xi=A'(r_0)=2r_0pi$:
$$A(r)=A(r_0)+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0(r-r_0)pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=r_0^2 pi+2r_0rpi-2r_0^2 pi+eta(r)$$
$$A(r)=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r) tag1$$
If we want to get $eta(r)$:
$$r^2 pi=2rr_0 pi-r_0^2 pi + eta(r)$$
$$r^2 pi+r_0^2pi-2r r_0 pi=eta(r)$$
$$eta(r)=(r-r_0)^2 pi$$
Using some numbers, we have that $A(5)=25 pi$, $A(5.1)=26.01 pi$, $A(50)=2500 pi$. If we try to approximate $A(5.1)$ and $A(50)$ with $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$, we can use the first equation (without $eta(r)$):
$$A(r) approx 10 r pi - 25 pi$$
we get that $A(5.1) approx 26 pi$ and $A(50) approx 475 pi$, while $eta(5.1)=0.01 pi$ and $eta(50)=2025 pi$. As you can see, it's quite good for $5.1$, but it's terrible for $50$.
This kind of linear approximation is really useful in physics, for example when you are dealing with a complicated system, you can't really solve the differential equation(s), but you can make the assumption that the change in the sought function (for example, the displacement-time function of a ball) is really small, so you can linearize the equation, and (probably) solve it.
edited Sep 4 at 7:12
answered Sep 3 at 13:54
Botond
4,2332632
4,2332632
1
Maybe the symbol $A$ is a little confusing here.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 15:43
@gimusi you're right.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 16:04
@Botond not able to understand a single word that you wrote !!
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:20
@JIM I extended my answer.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 17:13
add a comment |Â
1
Maybe the symbol $A$ is a little confusing here.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 15:43
@gimusi you're right.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 16:04
@Botond not able to understand a single word that you wrote !!
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:20
@JIM I extended my answer.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 17:13
1
1
Maybe the symbol $A$ is a little confusing here.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 15:43
Maybe the symbol $A$ is a little confusing here.
â gimusi
Sep 3 at 15:43
@gimusi you're right.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 16:04
@gimusi you're right.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 16:04
@Botond not able to understand a single word that you wrote !!
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:20
@Botond not able to understand a single word that you wrote !!
â JIM
Sep 3 at 16:20
@JIM I extended my answer.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 17:13
@JIM I extended my answer.
â Botond
Sep 3 at 17:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No, but you are on the right track.
The derivative you have found tells you that when the radius changes from $5$cm to $(5+h)$cm and $h$ is small then the area changes by approximately $10pi h$ square cm.
In your example you are taking $h=1$, which is not small, so the approximation isn't even close.
So what does the answer that I calculated actually means (if it does not mean change in area )??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:43
What you calculated is the approximation to the change in area you get by substituting $h=1$ in the approximation recipe the derivative provides. Whether that's a good approximation to the change depends on how large the derivative is and how big $h$ is relative to what matters in an application.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 14:46
In this case is my h correct ??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:09
There's no such thing as "the correct $h$". The smaller it is the better the approximation.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 21:32
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No, but you are on the right track.
The derivative you have found tells you that when the radius changes from $5$cm to $(5+h)$cm and $h$ is small then the area changes by approximately $10pi h$ square cm.
In your example you are taking $h=1$, which is not small, so the approximation isn't even close.
So what does the answer that I calculated actually means (if it does not mean change in area )??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:43
What you calculated is the approximation to the change in area you get by substituting $h=1$ in the approximation recipe the derivative provides. Whether that's a good approximation to the change depends on how large the derivative is and how big $h$ is relative to what matters in an application.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 14:46
In this case is my h correct ??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:09
There's no such thing as "the correct $h$". The smaller it is the better the approximation.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 21:32
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
No, but you are on the right track.
The derivative you have found tells you that when the radius changes from $5$cm to $(5+h)$cm and $h$ is small then the area changes by approximately $10pi h$ square cm.
In your example you are taking $h=1$, which is not small, so the approximation isn't even close.
No, but you are on the right track.
The derivative you have found tells you that when the radius changes from $5$cm to $(5+h)$cm and $h$ is small then the area changes by approximately $10pi h$ square cm.
In your example you are taking $h=1$, which is not small, so the approximation isn't even close.
answered Sep 3 at 13:51
Ethan Bolker
36.7k54299
36.7k54299
So what does the answer that I calculated actually means (if it does not mean change in area )??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:43
What you calculated is the approximation to the change in area you get by substituting $h=1$ in the approximation recipe the derivative provides. Whether that's a good approximation to the change depends on how large the derivative is and how big $h$ is relative to what matters in an application.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 14:46
In this case is my h correct ??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:09
There's no such thing as "the correct $h$". The smaller it is the better the approximation.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 21:32
add a comment |Â
So what does the answer that I calculated actually means (if it does not mean change in area )??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:43
What you calculated is the approximation to the change in area you get by substituting $h=1$ in the approximation recipe the derivative provides. Whether that's a good approximation to the change depends on how large the derivative is and how big $h$ is relative to what matters in an application.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 14:46
In this case is my h correct ??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:09
There's no such thing as "the correct $h$". The smaller it is the better the approximation.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 21:32
So what does the answer that I calculated actually means (if it does not mean change in area )??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:43
So what does the answer that I calculated actually means (if it does not mean change in area )??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:43
What you calculated is the approximation to the change in area you get by substituting $h=1$ in the approximation recipe the derivative provides. Whether that's a good approximation to the change depends on how large the derivative is and how big $h$ is relative to what matters in an application.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 14:46
What you calculated is the approximation to the change in area you get by substituting $h=1$ in the approximation recipe the derivative provides. Whether that's a good approximation to the change depends on how large the derivative is and how big $h$ is relative to what matters in an application.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 14:46
In this case is my h correct ??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:09
In this case is my h correct ??
â JIM
Sep 3 at 15:09
There's no such thing as "the correct $h$". The smaller it is the better the approximation.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 21:32
There's no such thing as "the correct $h$". The smaller it is the better the approximation.
â Ethan Bolker
Sep 3 at 21:32
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
To say that $left.dfracdAdrright|_r,=,5text cm = 10pitext cm$ means that if you multiply the rate of change of $r,$ at the point at which $r=5text cm,$ by $10pitext cm,$ you get the rate of change of $A$ at that point. But that does not mean that if $r$ grows by $1text cm,$ then $A$ will increase by $10pitext cm^2,$ because it won't continue changing at that same rate as $r$ changes.
Generally if $left.dfracdydxright|_x,=,a = b$ means that at the point where $x=a,$ the dependent variable $y$ is changing $a$ times as fast as the independent variable $x.$
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
To say that $left.dfracdAdrright|_r,=,5text cm = 10pitext cm$ means that if you multiply the rate of change of $r,$ at the point at which $r=5text cm,$ by $10pitext cm,$ you get the rate of change of $A$ at that point. But that does not mean that if $r$ grows by $1text cm,$ then $A$ will increase by $10pitext cm^2,$ because it won't continue changing at that same rate as $r$ changes.
Generally if $left.dfracdydxright|_x,=,a = b$ means that at the point where $x=a,$ the dependent variable $y$ is changing $a$ times as fast as the independent variable $x.$
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
To say that $left.dfracdAdrright|_r,=,5text cm = 10pitext cm$ means that if you multiply the rate of change of $r,$ at the point at which $r=5text cm,$ by $10pitext cm,$ you get the rate of change of $A$ at that point. But that does not mean that if $r$ grows by $1text cm,$ then $A$ will increase by $10pitext cm^2,$ because it won't continue changing at that same rate as $r$ changes.
Generally if $left.dfracdydxright|_x,=,a = b$ means that at the point where $x=a,$ the dependent variable $y$ is changing $a$ times as fast as the independent variable $x.$
To say that $left.dfracdAdrright|_r,=,5text cm = 10pitext cm$ means that if you multiply the rate of change of $r,$ at the point at which $r=5text cm,$ by $10pitext cm,$ you get the rate of change of $A$ at that point. But that does not mean that if $r$ grows by $1text cm,$ then $A$ will increase by $10pitext cm^2,$ because it won't continue changing at that same rate as $r$ changes.
Generally if $left.dfracdydxright|_x,=,a = b$ means that at the point where $x=a,$ the dependent variable $y$ is changing $a$ times as fast as the independent variable $x.$
answered Sep 3 at 18:06
Michael Hardy
206k23187466
206k23187466
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2903870%2fderivative-as-a-rate-measurer%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
But area $A$ at $6 text cm$ is $pi 36 text cm^2$ while area at $5 text cm$ is $pi 25 text cm^2$
â Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 3 at 13:48
1
Not quite. It means that when the radius of the circle changes from $5 rm cm$ to $(5+epsilon) rm cm$, the area of the circle changes by approximately $10piepsilon rm cm^2$, and the approximation is more accurate the smaller $epsilon$ is. In your example, $epsilon=1$, which is not very small, so the estimated change in area, $10pi rm cm^2$, is only moderately close to the actual change of area, $11pi rm cm^2$.
â Rahul
Sep 3 at 13:51
@Rahul what does the answer that I calculated actually means ?
â JIM
Sep 3 at 14:49
1
Your $10pi cm^2/cm$ is often called a "first order approximation". More correctly, together with the information $A(5) = 25pi$, it is $A(6)approx 25pi + 10pi$ which is a first order approximation of $A(6)$. It is the best approximation to $A(6)$ that you can make knowing only $A(5)$ and $A'(5)$.
â Arthur
Sep 3 at 16:14