Two ways of doing an integral (Part 2)

A colleague placed the following problem on an exam, expecting the following solution:

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{\sqrt{4x-x^2}} = \sin^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{x-2}{2} \right) + C$

However, one student produced the following solution (see yesterday’s post for details):

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{\sqrt{4x-x^2}} = 2 \sin^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{2} \right) + C$

As he couldn’t find a mistake in the student’s work, he assumed that the two expressions were equivalent. Indeed, he differentiated the student’s work to make sure it was right. But he couldn’t immediately see, using elementary reasoning, why they were equivalent. So he walked across the hall to my office to ask me if I could help.

Here’s how I showed they are equivalent.

Let $\alpha = \displaystyle \sin^{-1} \left( \frac{x-2}{2} \right)$ and $\beta = \sin^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{2} \right)$ . Then

$\displaystyle \sin(\alpha - 2\beta) = \sin \alpha \cos 2\beta - \cos \alpha \sin 2\beta$ .

Let’s evaluate the four expressions on the right-hand side.

First, $\sin \alpha$ is clearly equal to $\displaystyle \frac{x-2}{2}$ .

Second, $\cos 2\beta = 1 - 2 \sin^2 \beta$ , so that

$\cos 2\beta = \displaystyle 1 - 2\left( \frac{\sqrt{x}}{2} \right)^2 = \displaystyle 1 - \frac{x}{2} = \displaystyle -\frac{x-2}{2}$ .

Third, to evaluate $\cos \alpha$, I’ll use the identity $\displaystyle \cos \left( \sin^{-1} x \right) = \sqrt{1 - x^2}$ :

$\cos \alpha = \displaystyle \sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{x-2}{2} \right)^2 } = \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4x-x^2}}{2}$

Fourth, $\sin 2\beta = 2 \sin \beta \cos \beta$ . Using the above identity again, we find

$\sin 2\beta = \displaystyle 2 \left( \frac{ \sqrt{x} }{2} \right) \sqrt{ 1 - \left( \frac{ \sqrt{x} }{2} \right)^2 }$

$= \sqrt{x} \sqrt{1 - \displaystyle \frac{x}{4}}$

$= \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4x-x^2}}{2}$

Combining the above, we find

$\sin(\alpha - 2 \beta) = \displaystyle -\left( \frac{x-2}{2} \right)^2 - \left( \frac{\sqrt{4x-x^2}}{2} \right)^2$

$\sin(\alpha - 2 \beta) = \displaystyle \frac{-(x^2 - 4x + 4) - (4x - x^2)}{4}$

$\sin(\alpha - 2 \beta) = -1$

$\alpha - 2 \beta = \displaystyle -\frac{\pi}{2} + 2\pi n$ for some integer $n$

Also, since $-\pi/2 \le \alpha \le \pi/2$ and $0 \le -2\beta \le \pi$ , we see that $-\pi/2 \le \alpha - 2 \beta \le 3\pi/2$ . (From its definition, $\beta$ is the arcsine of a positive number and therefore must be nonnegative.) Therefore, $\alpha - 2\beta = -\pi/2$ .

In other words,

$\sin^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{x-2}{2} \right)$ and $2 \sin^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{2} \right)$

differ by a constant, thus showing that the two antiderivatives are equivalent.

Two ways of doing an integral (Part 1)

A colleague placed the following problem on an exam:

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{\sqrt{4x-x^2}}$

He expected students to solve this problem by the standard technique, completing the square:

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{\sqrt{4x-x^2}} = \displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{4-(x-2)^2} = \sin^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{x-2}{2} \right) + C$

However, one student solved this problem by some clever algebra and the substitution $u = \sqrt{x}$ , so that $x = u^2$ and $dx = 2u \, du = 2 \sqrt{x} \, du$ :

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{\sqrt{4x-x^2}} = \displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{\sqrt{x} \sqrt{4-x}}$

$= \displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{\sqrt{x} \sqrt{4 - (\sqrt{x})^2}}$

$= \displaystyle \int \frac{2 \, du}{\sqrt{4 - u^2}}$

$= 2 \sin^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{u}{2} \right) + C$

$= 2 \sin^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{2} \right) + C$

After a few minutes, I was able to show that the two expressions were equivalent.

I’ll leave this one as a cliff-hanger for now. In tomorrow’s post, I’ll show why they’re equivalent.

Approximating pi

I was recently interviewed by my city’s local newspaper about $\pi$ Day and the general fascination with memorizing the digits of $\pi$ . I was asked by the reporter if the only constraint in our knowledge of the digits of $\pi$ was the ability of computers to calculate the digits, and I answered in the affirmative.

Here’s the current state-of-the-art for calculating the digits of $\pi$ . Amazingly, this expression was discovered 1995… in other words, very recently.

$\pi = \displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{16^n} \left( \frac{4}{8n+1} - \frac{2}{8n+4} - \frac{1}{8n+5} - \frac{1}{8n+6} \right)$

Because of the term $16^n$ in the denominator, this infinite series converges very quickly.

Proof: If $k < 8$ , then we calculate the integral $I_k$ , defined below:

$I_k = \displaystyle \int_0^{1/\sqrt{2}} \frac{x^{k-1}}{1-x^8} dx$

$= \displaystyle \int_0^{1/\sqrt{2}} x^{k-1} \sum_{n=0}^\infty x^{8n} dx$

$= \displaystyle \int_0^{1/\sqrt{2}} \sum_{n=0}^\infty x^{8n+k-1} dx$

$= \displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^\infty \int_0^{1/\sqrt{2}} x^{8n+k-1} dx$

$= \displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[ \frac{x^{8n+k}}{8n+k} \right]^{1/\sqrt{2}}_0$

$= \displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{8n+k} \left[ \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^{8n+k} - 0 \right]$

$= \displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2^{k/2}} \frac{1}{16^n (8n+k)}$

We now form the linear combination $P = 4\sqrt{2} I_1 - 8 I_4 - 4\sqrt{2} I_5 - 8 I_6$ :

$P = \displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left( \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{2^{1/2}} \frac{1}{16^n (8n+1)} - \frac{8}{2^{4/2}} \frac{1}{16^n (8n+4)} - \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{2^{5/2}} \frac{1}{16^n (8n+5)} - \frac{8}{2^{6/2}} \frac{1}{16^n (8n+6)} \right)$

$P = \displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{16^n} \left( \frac{4}{8n+1} - \frac{2}{8n+4} - \frac{1}{8n+5} - \frac{1}{8n+6} \right)$

Also, from the original definition of the $I_k$ ,

$P = \displaystyle \int_0^{1/\sqrt{2}} \frac{4\sqrt{2} - 8x^3 -4\sqrt{2} x^4 - 8x^5}{1-x^8} dx$ .

Employ the substitution $x = y/\sqrt{2}$ :

$P = \displaystyle \int_ 0^1 \frac{4\sqrt {2} - 2\sqrt {2} y^3 - \sqrt {2} y^4 - \sqrt {2} y^5}{1 - y^8/16}\frac {dy} {\sqrt {2}}$

$P = \displaystyle \int_ 0^1 \frac{16 (4 - 2 y^3 - y^4 - y^5)}{16 - y^8} dy$

$P = \displaystyle \int_0^1 \frac{16(y-1)(y^2+2)(y^2+2y+2)}{(y^2-2)(y^2+2)(y^2+2y+2)(y^2-2y+2)} dy$

$P = \displaystyle \int_0^1 \frac{16y-16}{(y^2-2)(y^2-2y+2)} dy$

Using partial fractions, we find

$P = \displaystyle \int_ 0^1\frac{4 y}{y^2 - 2} dy - \int_ 0^1 \frac{4 y - 8}{y^2 - 2 y + 2} dy$

The expression on the right-hand side can be simplified using standard techniques from Calculus II and is equal to $\pi$ .

So that’s the proof… totally accessible to a student who has mastered concepts in Calculus II. But this begs the question: how in the world did anyone come up with the idea of starting with the integrals $I_k$ to develop an infinite series that leads to $\pi$ ? Let me quote from page 118 of J. Arndt and C. Haenel, $\pi -$ Unleashed (Springer, New York, 2000):

Certainly not by chance, even if luck played some part in the discovery. All three parties [David Bailey, Peter Borwein and Simon Plouffe] are established mathematicians who have been working with the number $\pi$ for a considerable time… Yet the series was not discovered through mathematical deduction or inference. Instead, the researchers used a tool called Computer Algebra System and a particular procedure called the “PSQL algorithm” to generate their series. They themselves write that they found their formula “through a combination of inspired testing and extensive searching.”

The original paper that announced the discovery of this series can be found at http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/personal/pborwein/PAPERS/P123.pdf.

Day One of my Calculus I class: Part 6

In this series of posts, I’d like to describe what I tell my students on the very first day of Calculus I. On this first day, I try to set the table for the topics that will be discussed throughout the semester. I should emphasize that I don’t hold students immediately responsible for the content of this lecture. Instead, this introduction, which usually takes 30-45 minutes, depending on the questions I get, is meant to help my students see the forest for all of the trees. For example, when we start discussing somewhat dry topics like the definition of a continuous function and the Mean Value Theorem, I can always refer back to this initial lecture for why these concepts are ultimately important.

I’ve told students that the topics in Calculus I build upon each other (unlike the topics of Precalculus), but that there are going to be two themes that run throughout the course:

Approximating curved things by straight things, and
Passing to limits

I’ve then quickly used these themes to solve two completely different problems: (1) finding the speed of a falling object at impact and (2) finding the area under a parabola. I can usually cover these topics in less than 50 minutes, sometimes in 35 minutes. Again, because I’m not immediately holding my students responsible for the contents of this introduction, I feel freer to move a little quicker than I would otherwise in the hopes of showing the forest for all of the trees.

I then ask the obvious question: what do these two questions have to do with each other. One involves the distance-rate-time formula. The other involves the areas of rectangles. At first blush, these two questions seem completely unrelated. And at second blush. And at third blush.

I tell my class that these two apparently unrelated questions are indeed related by something called the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Somehow, the process of finding the area under a curve is intimately related to finding an instantaneous rate of change. I then make a bold, eye-catching statement: The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind, period. And, at the ripe old age of 17, 18, or 19 years old, my students are now privileged to understand this great accomplishment.

This ends my introduction to Calculus I. I’ll then begin the more mundane development of limits on the way to formally defining a derivative.

Day One of my Calculus I class: Part 5

I’ve told students that the topics in Calculus I build upon each other (unlike the topics of Precalculus), but that there are going to be two themes that run throughout the course:

Approximating curved things by straight things, and
Passing to limits

We are now trying to answer the following problem.

Problem #2. Find the area under the parabola $f(x) = x^2$ between $x=0$ and $x=1$ .

Using five rectangles with right endpoints, we find the approximate answer of $0.44$ . With ten rectangles, the approximation is $0.385$ . With one hundred rectangles (and Microsoft Excel), the approximation is $0.33835$ . This last expression was found by evaluating

$0.01[ (0.01)^2 + (0.02)^2 + \dots + (0.99)^2 + 1^2]$

At this juncture, what I’ll do depends on my students’ background. For many years, I had the same group of students for both Precalculus and Calculus I, and so I knew full well that they had seen the formula for $\displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n k^2$ . And so I’d feel comfortable showing my students the contents of this post. However, if I didn’t know for sure that my students had at least seen this formula, I probably would just ask them to guess the limiting answer without doing any of the algebra to follow.

Assuming students have the necessary prerequisite knowledge, I’ll ask, “What happens if we have $n$ rectangles?” Without much difficulty, they’ll see that the rectangles have a common width of $1/n$ . The heights of the rectangles take a little more work to determine. I’ll usually work left to right. The left-most rectangle has right-most $x-$ coordinate of $1/n$ , and so the height of the leftmost rectangle is $(1/n)^2$ . The next rectangle has a height of $(2/n)^2$ , and so we must evaluate

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{n} \left[ \frac{1^2}{n^2} + \frac{2^2}{n^2} + \dots + \frac{n^2}{n^2} \right]$ , or

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^3} \left[ 1^2 + 2^2 + \dots + n^2 \right]$

I then ask my class, what’s the formula for this sum? Invariably, they’ve forgotten the formula in the five or six weeks between the end of Precalculus and the start of Calculus I, and I’ll tease them about this a bit. Eventually, I’ll give them the answer (or someone volunteers an answer that’s either correct or partially correct):

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^3} \times \frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}$ , or $\frac{(n+1)(2n+1)}{6n^2}$ .

I’ll then directly verify that our previous numerical work matches this expression by plugging in $n=5$ , $n= 10$ , and $n = 100$ .

I then ask, “What limit do we need to take this time?” Occasionally, I’ll get the incorrect answer of sending $n$ to zero, as students sometimes get mixed up thinking about the width of the rectangles instead of the number of rectangles. Eventually, the class will agree that we should send $n$ to plus infinity. Fortunately, the answer $\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)(2n+1)}{6n^2}$ is an example of a rational function, and so the horizontal asymptote can be immediately determined by dividing the leading coefficients of the numerator and denominator (since both have degree 2). We conclude that the limit is $2/6 = 1/3$ , and so that’s the area under the parabola.

Day One of my Calculus I class: Part 4

I’ve told students that the topics in Calculus I build upon each other (unlike the topics of Precalculus), but that there are going to be two themes that run throughout the course:

Approximating curved things by straight things, and
Passing to limits

I then applied these two themes to find the speed of a falling object at impact.

I now switch to a second, completely unrelated (or at least it seems completely unrelated) problem.

Problem #2. Find the area under the parabola $f(x) = x^2$ between $x=0$ and $x=1$ .

I draw the picture and ask, “OK, what formula from geometry can we use for this one?” Stunned silence.

I say, “Of course you can’t do this yet. This is a curved thing. Back in high school geometry, you learned (with one exception) the areas of straight things. What straight things had area formulas in high school geometry?” I’ll always get rectangles and triangles as responses. Occasionally, someone will volunteer parallelogram or rhombus or kite.

So I ask the leading question, which of these shapes is easiest? Students always answer, “Rectangles.” Which then leads me to the next question: How can we approximate the area under a parabola with a bunch of rectangles?

Again, stunned silence. I let my students think about it for at least a minute, sometimes two minutes. Hopefully, one student will volunteer the answer that I want, though occasionally I’ll have to coax it out of them.

Eventually either a student volunteers (or else I tell the class) that we ought to use a bunch of thin rectangles. For starters, I’ll use five rectangles and a very rough sketch on the board.

I’ll start with the right-most rectangle… what is its area? Students immediately see that the width is $1/5$ , but the length takes a little bit more thought. And I make my students figure it out without me giving them the answer. Eventually, someone notices that the height is simply $f(1) = 1$ , so that the rightmost rectangle has an area of $0.2$ .

I then move to the rectangle that’s second to the right. This also has a width of $1/5$ , but the height is $(0.8)^2 = 0.64$ . So the area is $0.128$ .

Eventually, we get that the sum of the areas is $0.008 + 0.032 + 0.072 + 0.128 + 0.2 = 0.44$ . Students can easily see that this is a decent approximation to the area under the parabola, but it’s a bit too large.

I then ask the same question that I had before: how can we get a better approximation? Students will usually volunteer either “More rectangles” or “Thinner rectangles,” which of course are logically equivalent. I then proceed with 10 equal-width rectangles. Occasionally, a student volunteers that perhaps we should use thinner rectangles only on the right side of the figure, which of course is a very astute observation. However, I tell my class that, for the sake of simplicity, we’ll stick with rectangles of equal width.

With ten rectangles (and I redraw the picture with ten thin rectangles), the approximation is quickly found to be

$0.1 [ (0.1)^2 + (0.2)^2 + \dots + (0.9)^2 + 1^2] = 0.385$

I like using ten rectangles, as that’s probably the largest number that can be handled in class without a calculator (until the very last step of adding up the areas).

By now, the class sees what the next steps are: take more and more rectangles. At this point, I’ll resort to classroom technology to make the process a little quicker. I personally prefer Microsoft Excel, though other software packages can be used for this purpose. For $100$ rectangles, the class quickly sees that the sum of the rectangles is

$0.01 [ (0.01)^2 + (0.02)^2 + \dots + (0.99)^2 +( 1.00)^2] = 0.33835$

My class can see that the answer is still too large, but it’s certainly closer to the correct answer.

I’ll then tell the class that this is another example of passing to limits, the second theme of calculus. I’ll describe this more fully in the next post.

Area of a circle (Part 3)

Math majors are completely comfortable with the formula $A = \pi r^2$ for the area of a circle. However, they often tell me that they don’t remember a proof or justification for why this formula is true. And they certainly don’t remember a justification that would be appropriate for showing geometry students.

$A = \displaystyle \iint_R 1 \, dx \, dy$

This double integral may be computed by converting to polar coordinates. The distance from the origin varies from $r=0$ to $r=a$ , while the angle varies from $\theta = 0$ to $\theta = 2\pi$ . Using the conversion $dx \, dy = r \, dr \, d\theta$ , we see that

$A = \displaystyle \int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^a r \, dr \, d \theta$

$A = \displaystyle \int_0^{2\pi} \left[ \frac{r^2}{2} \right]_0^a \, d\theta$

$A = \displaystyle \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{a^2}{2} \, d\theta$

$A = \displaystyle 2 \pi \cdot \frac{a^2}{2}$

$A = \displaystyle \pi a^2$

We note that the above proof uses the fact that calculus with trigonometric functions must be done with radians and not degrees. In other words, we had to change the range of integration to $[0,2\pi]$ and not $[0^o, 360^o]$ .

Area of a circle (Part 2)

A circle centered at the origin with radius $r$ may be viewed as the region between $f(x) = -\sqrt{r^2 - x^2}$ and $g(x) = \sqrt{r^2 - x^2}$ . These two functions intersect at $x = r$ and $x = -r$ . Therefore, the area of the circle is the integral of the difference of the two functions:

$A = \displaystyle \int_{-r}^r \left[g(x) - f(x) \right] \, dx= \displaystyle \int_{-r}^r 2 \sqrt{r^2 - x^2} \, dx$

This may be evaluated by using the trigonometric substitution $x = r \sin \theta$ and changing the range of integration to $\theta = -\pi/2$ to $\theta = \pi/2$ . Since $dx = r \cos \theta \, d\theta$ , we find

$A = \displaystyle \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} 2 \sqrt{r^2 - r^2 \sin^2 \theta} \, r \cos \theta d\theta$

$A = \displaystyle \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} 2 r^2 \cos^2 \theta d\theta$

$A = \displaystyle r^2 \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} (1 + \cos 2\theta) d\theta$

$A = \displaystyle r^2 \left[ \theta + \frac{1}{2} \sin 2\theta \right]_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}$

$A = \displaystyle r^2 \left[ \left( \displaystyle \frac{\pi}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \sin \pi \right) - \left( - \frac{\pi}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \sin (-\pi) \right) \right]$

$A = \pi r^2$

Area of a circle (Part 1)

In this series of posts, I’ll discuss several ways that the area of a circle can be found using calculus. I’ll also discuss a straightforward classroom activity by which students can discover for themselves why $A = \pi r^2$ .In the first few weeks after a calculus class, after students are introduced to the concept of limits, the derivative is introduced for the first time… often as the slope of a tangent line to the curve. Here it is: if $y = f(x)$, then

$\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx} = y' = f'(x) = \lim_{h \to 0} \displaystyle \frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h}$

From this definition, the first few rules of differentiation are derived in approximately the following order:

1. If $f(x) = c$ , a constant, then $\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (c) = 0$ .

2. If $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ are both differentiable, then $(f+g)'(x) = f'(x) + g'(x)$ .

3. If $f(x)$ is differentiable and $c$ is a constant, then $(cf)'(x) = c f'(x)$ .

4. If $f(x) = x^n$ , where $n$ is a nonnegative integer, then $f'(x) = n x^{n-1}$ . This may be proved by at least two different techniques:

The binomial expansion $(x+h)^n = x^n + n x^{n-1} h + \displaystyle {n \choose 2} x^{n-2} h^2 + \dots + h^n$
The Product Rule (derived later) and mathematical induction

5. If $f(x) = a_n x^n + a_{n-1} x^{n-1} + \dots + a_1 x + a_0$ is a polynomial, then $f'(x) = n a_n x^{n-1} + (n-1) a_{n-1} x^{n-2} + a_1$ . In other words, taking the derivative of a polynomial is easy.

After doing a few examples to help these concepts sink in, I’ll show the following two examples with about 3-4 minutes left in class.

Example 1. Let $A(r) = \pi r^2$ . Notice I’ve changed the variable from $x$ to $r$ , but that’s OK. Does this remind you of anything? (Students answer: the area of a circle.) What’s the derivative? Remember, $\pi$ is just a constant. So $A'(r) = \pi \cdot 2r = 2\pi r$ . Does this remind you of anything? (Students answer: Whoa… the circumference of a circle.)

Example 2. Now let’s try $V(r) = \displaystyle \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3$ . Does this remind you of anything? (Students answer: the volume of a sphere.) What’s the derivative? Again, $\displaystyle \frac{4}{3} \pi$ is just a constant. So $V'(r) = \displaystyle \frac{4}{3} \pi \cdot 3r^2 = 4\pi r^2$ . Does this remind you of anything? (Students answer: Whoa… the surface area of a sphere.)

Hmmm. That’s interesting. The derivative of the area of a circle is the circumference of the circle, and the derivative of the area of a sphere is the surface area of the sphere. I wonder why this works. Any ideas? (Students: stunned silence.)

This is what’s known on television as a cliff-hanger, and I’ll give you the answer at the start of class tomorrow. (Students groan, as they really want to know the answer immediately.)

In the spirit of a cliff-hanger, I offer the following thought bubble before presenting the answer.

By definition, if $A(r) = \pi r^2$ , then

$A'(r) = \displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{ A(r+h) - A(r) }{h} = 2\pi r$

The numerator may be viewed as the area of the ring between concentric circles with radii $r$ and $r+h$ . In other words, imagine starting with a solid red disk of radius $r +h$ and then removing a solid white disk of radius $r$ . The picture would look something like this:

Notice that the ring has a thickness of $r+h -r = h$ . If this ring were to be “unpeeled” and flattened, it would approximately resemble a rectangle. The height of the rectangle would be $h$ , while the length of the rectangle would be the circumference of the circle. So

$A(r + h) - A(r) \approx 2 \pi r h$

and we can conclude that

$A'(r) = \displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{ 2 \pi r h}{h} = 2\pi r$

By the same reasoning, the derivative of the volume of a sphere ought to be the surface area of the sphere.

Pedagogically, I find that the above discussion helps reinforce the definition of a derivative at a time when students are most willing to forget about the formal definition in favor of the various rules of differentiation.

In the above work, we started with the formula for the area of the circle and then confirmed that its derivative matched the expected result. However, the above logic can be used to derive the formula for the area of a circle from the formula $C(r) = 2\pi r$ for the circumference. We begin with the observation that $A'(r) = C(r)$ , as above. Therefore, by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus,

$A(r) - A(0) = \displaystyle \int_0^r C(t) \, dt$

$A(r) - A(0) = \displaystyle \int_0^r 2\pi t \, dt$

$A(r) - A(0) = \displaystyle \left[ \pi t^2 \right]_0^r$

$A(r) - A(0) = \pi r^2$

Since the area of a circle with radius $0$ is $0$ , we conclude that $A(r) = \pi r^2$ .

Pedagogically, I don’t particularly recommend this approach, as I think students would find this explanation more confusing than the first approach. However, I can see that this could be useful for reinforcing the statement of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

By the way, the above reasoning works for a square or cube also, but with a little twist. For a square of side length $s$ , the area is $A(s) = s^2$ and the perimeter is $P(s) = 4s$ , which isn’t the derivative of $A(s)$ . The reason this didn’t work is because the side length $s$ of a square corresponds to the diameter of a circle, not the radius of a circle.