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

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.

(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 […]

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 […]

I learned of this problem through Su Gao, who heard of it years ago while a post-doc at Caltech. David Gale introduced this game in the 70s, I believe. I am only aware of two references in print: Richard K. Guy. Unsolved problems in combinatorial games. In Games of No Chance, (R. J. Nowakowski ed.) MSRI Publications 29, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. […]

Let $C$ be the standard Cantor middle-third set. As a consequence of the Baire category theorem, there are numbers $r$ such that $C+r$ consists solely of irrational numbers, see here. What would be an explicit example of a number $r$ with this property? Short of an explicit example, are there any references addressing this question? A natural approach would […]

Suppose $M$ is an inner model (of $\mathsf{ZF}$) with the same reals as $V$, and let $A\subseteq \mathbb R$ be a set of reals in $M$. Suppose further that $A$ is determined in $M$. Under these assumptions, $A$ is also determined in $V$. The point is that since winning strategies are coded by reals, and any possible run of the game for $A$ is coded by a real, […]

The two concepts are different. For example, $\omega$, the first infinite ordinal, is the standard example of an inductive set according to the first definition, but is not inductive in the second sense. In fact, no set can be inductive in both senses (any such putative set would contain all ordinals). In the context of set theory, the usual use of the term […]

I will show that for any positive integers $n,\ell,k$ there is an $M$ so large that for all positive integers $i$, if $i/M\le \ell$, then the difference $$ \left(\frac iM\right)^n-\left(\frac{i-1}M\right)^n $$ is less than $1/k$. Let's prove this first, and then argue that the result follows from it. Note that $$ (i+1)^n-i^n=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\binom nk i^ […]

I think it is cleaner to argue without induction. If $n$ is a positive integer and $n\ge 8$, then $7n$ is both less than $n^2$ and a multiple of $n$, so at most $n^2-n$ and therefore $7n+1$ is at most $n^2-n+1

Let PRA be the theory of Primitive recursive arithmetic. This is a subtheory of PA, and it suffices to prove the incompleteness theorem. It is perhaps not the easiest theory to work with, but the point is that a proof of incompleteness can be carried out in a significantly weaker system than the theories to which incompleteness actually applies. It is someti […]