Problem 1 tells us that a rectangular piece of cardboard of dimensions is used to make an open-top box by cutting out a small square of side from each corner and bending up the sides. If , then the volume of the box is . Starting from this initial guess of , the problem asks us to use Newton’s method to find a value of for which the box has volume 100, accurate to 3 significant figures.

To solve the problem, first we observe that for any , the volume of the box is , as a quick diagram would indicate. We want to solve the equation

using Newton’s method. Since the method is designed to solve equations of the form , we take . In the method, we begin with an initial guess and then compute further guesses by means of the formula

In the case that concerns us, and (using the product rule) .

The file below was produced using the software package Sage, which can be downloaded for free at the link. (As a side note, if you expect through your careers you will be doing a significant amount of non-trivial computations, it may be a reasonable investment of time to learn how to use one or two software packages. I like Sage personally, but of course there are many other alternatives, although not all are free.)

In the file, the value of each new guess is shown both exactly (as a fraction) and then numerically. As can be seen from the computations above, is a very reasonable approximation to the solution of .

Problem 2 tells us that the U.S. post office will accept a box for shipment only if the sum of the length and girth (distance around) is at most 108 in. We are asked to find the dimensions of the largest acceptable box with square front and back.

To solve this problem, we imagine a box with square front of side length , and width . We are told that . We are also asked to maximize the volume of the box. But the volume can be easily computed by the formula . Clearly, if we fix the value of and increase the value of , the volume increases. This means that we may as well suppose that . Then and

We need to optimize this volume subject to the restrictions that and . For this, we solve . We have

We have that iff or . Hence, we need to check the value of when , , and .

In the first and last cases, . In the second one, . It follows that this is the maximum volume, and it is achieved when inches, and inches.

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 11th, 2010 at 2:53 pm and is filed under 170: Calculus I. 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 am not sure which statement you heard as the "Ultimate $L$ axiom," but I will assume it is the following version: There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals, and for all sentences $\varphi$ that hold in $V$, there is a universally Baire set $A\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ such that, letting $\theta=\Theta^{L(A,{\mathbb R})}$, we have that $HOD^{L(A,{\ma […]

A Wadge initial segment (of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$) is a subset $\Gamma$ of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ such that whenever $A\in\Gamma$ and $B\le_W A$, where $\le_W$ denotes Wadge reducibility, then $B\in\Gamma$. Note that if $\Gamma\subseteq\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ and $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models \Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$, then $\Gamma$ is a Wadge initial se […]

Craig: For a while, there was some research on improving bounds on the number of variables or degree of unsolvable Diophantine equations. Unfortunately, I never got around to cataloging the known results in any systematic way, so all I can offer is some pointers to relevant references, but I am not sure of what the current records are. Perhaps the first pape […]

Yes. Consider, for instance, Conway's base 13 function $c$, or any function that is everywhere discontinuous and has range $\mathbb R$ in every interval. Pick continuous bijections $f_n:\mathbb R\to(-1/n,1/n)$ for $n\in\mathbb N^+$. Pick a strictly decreasing sequence $(x_n)_{n\ge1}$ converging to $0$. Define $f$ by setting $f(x)=0$ if $x=0$ or $\pm x_n […]

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

I feel this question may be a duplicate, because I am pretty certain I first saw the paper I mention below in an answer here. You may be interested in reading the following: MR2141502 (2006c:68092) Reviewed. Calude, Cristian S.(NZ-AUCK-C); Jürgensen, Helmut(3-WON-C). Is complexity a source of incompleteness? (English summary), Adv. in Appl. Math. 35 (2005), […]

The smallest such ordinal is $0$ because you defined your rank (height) inappropriately (only successor ordinals are possible). You want to define the rank of a node without successors as $0$, and of a node $a$ with successors as the supremum of the set $\{\alpha+1\mid\alpha$ is the rank of an immediate successor of $a\}$. With this modification, the smalles […]

The perfect reference for this is MR2562557 (2010j:03061) Reviewed. Steel, J. R.(1-CA). The derived model theorem. In Logic Colloquium 2006. Proceedings of Annual European Conference on Logic of the Association for Symbolic Logic held at the Radboud University, Nijmegen, July 27–August 2, 2006, S. B. Cooper, H. Geuvers, A. Pillay and J. Väänänen, eds., Lectu […]

Consider $A=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb R^2\mid x\notin L[y]\}$. Check that this set is $\Pi^1_2$ (this is similar to the proof that there is a $\Delta^1_2$ well-ordering in $L$). The point is that $A$ does not admit a projective uniformization. It does not really matter that the number of Cohen reals you added is $\aleph_2$; any uncountable number would work. The rea […]