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.

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.

For positive integers $a_1,\dots,a_n$, recall that the multicolor Ramsey number $R(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ is the smallest integer $N$ such that if the edges of the complete graph $K_N$ are colored with the $n$ colors $1,\dots,n$, then there is some $i\le n$ and a set of $a_i$ vertices, all of whose edges received color $i$. A maximal Ramsey$(a_1,\dots,a_n)$-colorin […]

Georgii: Let me start with some brief remarks. In a series of three papers: a. Wacław Sierpiński, "Contribution à la théorie des séries divergentes", Comp. Rend. Soc. Sci. Varsovie 3 (1910) 89–93 (in Polish). b. Wacław Sierpiński, "Remarque sur la théorème de Riemann relatif aux séries semi-convergentes", Prac. Mat. Fiz. XXI (1910) 17–20 […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

Stefan, "low" cardinalities do not change by passing from $L({\mathbb R})$ to $L({\mathbb R})[{\mathcal U}]$, so the answer to the second question is that the existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter does not imply the existence of a Vitali set. More precisely: Assume determinacy in $L({\mathbb R})$. Then $2^\omega/E_0$ is a successor cardinal to ${ […]

Marginalia to a theorem of Silver (see also this link) by Keith I. Devlin and R. B. Jensen, 1975. A humble title and yet, undoubtedly, one of the most important papers of all time in set theory.

Equality is part of the background (first-order) logic, so it is included, but there is no need to mention it. The situation is the same in many other theories. If you want to work in a language without equality, on the other hand, then this is mentioned explicitly. It is true that from extensionality (and logical axioms), one can prove that two sets are equ […]

$L$ has such a nice canonical structure that one can use it to define a global well-ordering. That is, there is a formula $\phi(u,v)$ that (provably in $\mathsf{ZF}$) well-orders all of $L$, so that its restriction to any specific set $A$ in $L$ is a set well-ordering of $A$. The well-ordering $\varphi$ you are asking about can be obtained as the restriction […]

Gödel sentences are by construction $\Pi^0_1$ statements, that is, they have the form "for all $n$ ...", where ... is a recursive statement (think "a statement that a computer can decide"). For instance, the typical Gödel sentence for a system $T$ coming from the second incompleteness theorem says that "for all $n$ that code a proof […]

When I first saw the question, I remembered there was a proof on MO using Ramsey theory, but couldn't remember how the argument went, so I came up with the following, that I first posted as a comment: A cute proof using Schur's theorem: Fix $a$ in your semigroup $S$, and color $n$ and $m$ with the same color whenever $a^n=a^m$. By Schur's theo […]

It depends on what you are doing. I assume by lower level you really mean high level, or general, or 2-digit class. In that case, 54 is general topology, 26 is real functions, 03 is mathematical logic and foundations. "Point-set topology" most likely refers to the stuff in 54, or to the theory of Baire functions, as in 26A21, or to descriptive set […]