Problem 1 is Exercise 9.3.16 from the book. Here is a graph showing the cardioid and the circle. The easiest way to compute the required area is by subtracting the area of the circle from that of the cardioid. (Note that the circle is completely contained in the cardioid as, for each we have that This shows that in the portion of the circle in the first quadrant is within the portion of the cardiod there. The same holds in the fourth quadrant by symmetry. Of course, all of this also follows directly from the graph.)

The area of the cardioid is given by and the area of the circle is (note that as varies from to the whole circle is traveled once).

By symmetry, so the area we want is given by

Recall that so the integral is

Now note from the Cartesian graph of that so the area we want is just

Problem 2 is Exercise 9.5.50 from the book. Recall that the standard polar equation of a line not going through the origin is given by

where is the distance from the line to the origin, and is the angle of the point in the line that realizes this distance, i.e., are the polar coordinates of the point on the line closest to the origin.

There are at least two ways we can proceed:

1) We can directly find the distance from the line to the origin. To do this, we recall that the line that goes through the origin and is perpendicular to where is given by The point in closest to the origin is the intersection of these two lines. In the case that interests us, this is the intersection of and so or or so We have found that the point is closest in to the origin. Its distance is Its angle is on the fourth quadrant and satisfies i.e.,

Putting this together, is the desired equation.

2) The other method we saw in lecture is based in the fact that

and consists in first writing the Cartesian equation of the line directly in polar coordinates, and then using the resulting expression to find and We have so or This gives us

We find a constant such that and are the cosine and the sine of some angle, precisely We then have

To find this we use that for any so must satisfy or so The value of such that and is This means that the equation we are looking for is

just as with the previous method.

Typeset using LaTeX2WP.

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Friday, October 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 am and is filed under 175: Calculus II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I thought about this question a while ago, while teaching a topics course. Since one can easily check that $${}|{\mathbb R}|=|{\mathcal P}({\mathbb N})|$$ by a direct construction that does not involve diagonalization, the question can be restated as: Is there a proof of Cantor's theorem that ${}|X|

First of all, note (as Monroe does in his question) that if $\mathbb P,\mathbb Q$ are ccc, then $\mathbb P\times\mathbb Q$ is $\mathfrak c^+$-cc, as an immediate consequence of the Erdős-Rado theorem $(2^{\aleph_0})^+\to(\aleph_1)^2_2$. (This is to say, if $\mathbb P$ and $\mathbb Q$ do not admit uncountable antichains, then any antichain in their product ha […]

The technique of almost disjoint forcing was introduced in MR0289291 (44 #6482). Jensen, R. B.; Solovay, R. M. Some applications of almost disjoint sets. In Mathematical Logic and Foundations of Set Theory (Proc. Internat. Colloq., Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 84–104, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970. Fix an almost disjoint family $X=(x_\alpha:\alpha

At the moment most of those decisions come from me, at least for computer science papers (those with a 68 class as primary). The practice of having proceedings and final versions of papers is not exclusive to computer science, but this is where it is most common. I've found more often than not that the journal version is significantly different from the […]

The answer is no in general. For instance, by what is essentially an argument of Sierpiński, if $(X,\Sigma,\nu)$ is a $\sigma$-finite continuous measure space, then no non-null subset of $X$ admits a $\nu\times\nu$-measurable well-ordering. The proof is almost verbatim the one here. It is consistent (assuming large cardinals) that there is an extension of Le […]

R. Solovay proved that the provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ sets are Lebesgue measurable (and have the property of Baire). A set $A$ is provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ iff there is a real $a$, a $\Sigma^1_2$ formula $\phi(x,y)$ and a $\Pi^1_2$ formula $\psi(x,y)$ such that $$A=\{t\mid \phi(t,a)\}=\{t\mid\psi(t,a)\},$$ and $\mathsf{ZFC}$ proves that $\phi$ and $\psi […]

A notion now considered standard of primitive recursive set function is introduced in MR0281602 (43 #7317). Jensen, Ronald B.; Karp, Carol. Primitive recursive set functions. In 1971 Axiomatic Set Thoory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967) pp. 143–176 Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I. The concept is use […]

The power of a set is its cardinality. (As opposed to its power set, which is something else.) As you noticed in the comments, Kurepa trees are supposed to have countable levels, although just saying that a tree has size and height $\omega_1$ is not enough to conclude this, so the definition you quoted is incomplete as stated. Usually the convention is that […]

The key problem in the absence of the axiom of replacement is that there may be well-ordered sets $S$ that are too large in the sense that they are longer than any ordinal. In that case, the collection of ordinals isomorphic to an initial segment of $S$ would be the class of all ordinals, which is not a set. For example, with $\omega$ denoting as usual the f […]