Talk:Cavalieri's principle

The method of exhaustion is most similar to the sandwich theorem. Archimedes used the property that states:

Given any magnitude x (whether commensurable or incommensurable with other magnitudes), there exist rational numbers m and n, such that m < x < n. This is the correct statement of the Archimedean property.

I am John Gabriel, the discoverer of the New Calculus, the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history. Most of your math articles are nonsense.

2601:5C4:C500:75C0:2830:B46D:D222:5317 (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This example states that

the plane located y units above the "equator" intersects the sphere in a circle of area $\backslash pi(r^2-y^2)$

And that

the area of the plane's intersection with the part of the cylinder that is outside of the cone is also $\backslash pi(r^2-y^2)$

Can someone double check that? I am trying to follow through the example and it seems that the area of the intersection circle in the sphere should be $2\backslash pi\backslash sqrt\{r^2-y^2\}$ and the intersection ring of the inner cylinder outside of the ring should be $2\backslash pi(r-y)$, different from what is claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.226.6 (talk • contribs)

: The article's statements are correct and yours are not. The circumference of the intersection of the plane with the sphere is 2π√(r² − y²), i.e. it's 2π times the radius. The area is π times the square of the radius. Since the radius is √(r² − y²), the area is π(r² − y²).

:

: Remember that the area needs to be proportional to the squares of the distances involved, and that fails to happen in either of the two formulas you give.

:

: Similarly in the cone example, what you give is the difference between the circumferences rather than the difference between the areas of the two concentric circles. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

:: Ah, that was very silly of me. Thanks for the clairification and the quick response. 192.223.226.6 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to read the same proof several times until I realized that a whole lot of working is missing in the jump to Pythagoras, which is asserted but not demonstrated. It would help if it was shown on the diagram that it is the annulus we are interested in (it should be shaded) and similarly that the slice through the sphere (shaded the same way) has that same area -- we need the triangle from the centre of the sphere to the centre of the slice to a point on the slice's circumference. Then Pythagoras appears, and then even I can follow the rest of the proof. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should change this:

"It is a short step from there to the conclusion that the area under a single whole cycloidal arch is three times the area of the circle. Which then means that the area of a rectangle bounding one half of a single cycloidal arch is two times the area of the circle, the area of a rectangle bounding a single whole cycloidal arch is four times the area of the circle, and the rectangularly-bounded area above a single whole cycloidal arch is exactly equal to the area of the circle.{{Citation needed|date=October 2014}}"

to this:

"It is a short step from there to the conclusion that the area under a single whole cycloidal arch is three times the area of the circle. (In addition, if you draw a rectangle around a cycloidal arch, the area of the portion of the rectangle _above_ the arch is exactly equal to that of the circle.)"

Also, why the "citation needed"? You can follow the logic by yourself.

Shouldn't the article make some mention of the (perhaps approximate) date on which the principle was formulated (in Europe)? Did Cavalieri come up with it, or is it just now named after him? The article states: "Cavalieri's principle was originally called the method of indivisibles, the name it was known by in Renaissance Europe." Was it known in Renaissance Europe before him (and perhaps he merely formalized it, clarified it, or otherwise popularized it), or was it known there because of him? If the former, then when was it first formulated in Europe? If the latter, when did he come up with it? Either way it should be mentioned, even if we can give a no better answer than "in the 17th century" (the time during which Cavalieri lived). Does anyone know the details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn81 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Cavalieri's principle. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=750039030 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202060633/http://dividano.de:80/prinzip-von-cavalieri.html to http://www.dividano.de/prinzip-von-cavalieri.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

In an analogy to the volume of a hemisphere, one can prove that the volume of a parabolid is half of its circumscribed cylinder. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

:Only a few months ago I was able to find a YouTuber who was both able and willing to do me this huge favor of creating a {{YouTube|U2_nvfWIAYE|video}} based on my [https://www.desmos.com/calculator/nyigzej5y1 original proof sketch].

:I hope someone will add this proof to the main page. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"using a method resembling Cavalieri's principle"

This was WAY before Cavalieri's existed,

and should not be stated as the method used by Archimedes.

He invented his own way to calculate it which

later on was resembled by Cavalieri, not vice versa.

And also, Archimedes was fantastic !

If only 10% of all the scientists were like him today,

we'd be sitting on Mars already. (non-pertinent comment.)

I mean he'd be fantastic today, so that would make him fantastic

squared back 2500 years ago.