The Derivative of Volume and Surface Area

The derivative of the volume $V=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$ of a sphere of radius $r$ with respect to $r$ is the surface area $S=4\pi r^2$. Is this a coincidence? It is not. There is a good reason why it happened that way. To understand it more easily, let us take a look at it’s lower dimensional analogue, namely the derivative of the area $\pi r^2$ of a circle of radius $r$ is the circumference $2\pi r$. Let me first explain why we get that. Let $A(r)=\pi r^2$. Then
$$\frac{dA}{dr}=\lim_{\Delta r\to 0}\frac{\pi(r+\Delta r)^2-\pi r^2}{\Delta r}.$$
$\pi(r+\Delta r)^2-\pi r^2$ is the area (shape of washer) between two circles both centered at the origin with radii $r+\Delta r$ and $r$, respectively as seen in the following figure:

As $\Delta r$ gets smaller, you see that the washer gets thiner. So if $\Delta r\to 0$, the washer becomes circle of radius $r$ resulting $\frac{dA}{dr}$ its circumference. By doing the same analysis, you can see why the derivative of the volume of sphere is its surface area.

Do any other objects share the relationship? Sure! For instance, the derivative of the area $x^2$ of a square with side $x$ is its circumference $2x$. The derivative of the volume $\pi r^2h$ of a cylinder with radius $r$ and height $h$ is its lateral surface area $2\pi rh$. How about a cube with volume $V=x^3$? In this case the derivative is $3x^2$ so it is not the surface area. Why is this? It is due to symmetry i.e. it depends on whether the volume increases symmetrically when you increase your variable such as length of side, radius, or height, etc. In case of a cube, increasing length from $x$ to $x+\Delta x$ results in the increase of volume from only three faces of the cube i.e. the volume of cube does not increase symmetrically in that case. When $\Delta x\to 0$, the volume increment becomes three faces resulting the derivative the area of those three faces $3x^2$.

How about a box with volume $V=xyz$? In this case, divergence would give a similar relationship. In fact, $\nabla\cdot V=\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial V}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial V}{\partial z}=yz+xz+xy$ which is the surface area of box with length $x$, width $y$ and height $z$. Imagine that a box is filled with fluid and assume that volume increase amounts to the fluid flowing into the box through its faces. $\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}$ would measure the rate of fluid flowing into the $yz$ face per unit time. That would indeed be the same as the area of the face $yz$.

The interior area of a simple closed curve is invariant under a rigid motion

Let $\gamma(t)=(x(t),y(t))$ be a positively-oriented simple closed curve in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with period $a$. The area of its interior is given by
$$A(\mathrm{int}(\gamma))=\int\int_{\mathrm{int}(\gamma)}dxdy=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^a(x\dot y-y\dot x)dt$$
The last line integral is obtained by applying Green’s Theorem to the second double integral. A rigid motion can be given by $M=T_b\circ R_{\theta}$ where $R_{\theta}=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\theta & -\sin\theta\\
\sin\theta & \cos\theta
\end{pmatrix}$ is a rotation by an angle $\theta$ and $T_b$ is a translation by a constant vector $b=(b_1,b_2)$. So $\tilde\gamma=M(\gamma)$ is given by
$$\tilde\gamma=(\tilde x,\tilde y)=(x\cos\theta-y\sin\theta+b_1,x\sin\theta+y\cos\theta+b_2)$$
and
\begin{align*}\tilde x\dot{\tilde y}-\tilde y\dot{\tilde x}&=x\dot y-y\dot x+b_1(\dot x\sin\theta+\dot y\cos\theta)-b_2(\dot x\cos\theta-\dot y\sin\theta)\\&=x\dot y-y\dot x+b\cdot\begin{pmatrix}
\sin\theta & \cos\theta\\
-\cos\theta & \sin\theta
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\dot x\\
\dot y
\end{pmatrix}\\&=x\dot y-y\dot x+b\cdot R_{\theta-\frac{\pi}{2}}(\dot\gamma)\end{align*}
\begin{align*}\int_0^a b\cdot R_{\theta-\frac{\pi}{2}}(\dot\gamma(t))dt&=b\cdot R_{\theta-\frac{\pi}{2}}\left(\int_0^a\dot\gamma(t)dt\right)\\
&=0\end{align*}
since $\int_0^a\dot\gamma(t)dt=\gamma(a)-\gamma(0)=0$. ($\gamma(t)$ is a simple closed curve with period $a$.) Therefore, $A(\mathrm{int}(\gamma))=A(\mathrm{int}(M(\gamma))$.

Zeros of Polynomials

As we studied here, once you know how to find at least one rational zero of a polynomial using long division or synthetic division you can find the rest of the zeros of the polynomial. In this note, we study how to find a rational zero of a polynomial if there is one. Let $P(x)=a_nx^n+\cdots +a_1x+a_0$ and suppose that $P(x)$ has a rational zero $\frac{p}{q}$. This means that by factor theorem $P(x)$ has a factor $x-\frac{p}{q}$ or equivalently a factor $qx-p$. That is, $P(x)=(qx-p)Q(x)$ where $Q(x)$ is a polynomial of degree $n-1$. Let us write $Q(x)=b_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\cdots+b_1x+b_0$. Then we see that $a_n=qb_{n-1}$ and $a_0=-pb_0$. This means that $q$ is a factor of the leading coefficient $a_n$ of $P(x)$ and $p$ is a factor of the constant term $a_0$ of $P(x)$. Hence we have the Rational Zero Theorem.

Rational Zero Theorem. Let $P(x)=a_nx^n+\cdots +a_1x+a_0$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients where $a_n\ne 0$ and $a_0\ne 0$. If $P(x)$ has a rationa zero $\frac{p}{q}$ then $q$ is a factor of $a_n$ and $p$ is a factor of $a_0$.

Here is the strategy to find a rational zero of a polynomial $P(x)$.

STEP 1. Use the rational zero theorem to find the all candidates for a rational zero of $P(x)$.

STEP 2. Test each candidate from STEP 1 to see if it is a rational zero using the factor theorem. Once you find one say $\frac{p}{q}$, stop and move to STEP 3

STEP 3. Use long division or synthetic division (easier) to divide $P(x)$ by $x-\frac{p}{q}$ to find the rest of the zeros.

STEP 4. If necessary (in the event $Q(x)$ from STEP 3 has a higher degree), repeat the process $Q(x)$ from STEP 1.

Example. Find all zeros of $P(x)=2x^3+x^2-13x+6$.

Solution. $a_0=2$ has factors $\pm 1$ and $\pm 2$. $a_0=6$ has factors $\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm3\pm 6$. Thus all the candidates for a rational zero are
$$\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3,\pm 6,\pm\frac{1}{2},\pm\frac{2}{2}=\pm 1,\pm\frac{3}{2},\pm\frac{6}{2}=\pm 3$$
Since $P(2)=0$, 2 is a rational zero. Using long division or synthetic division we find $Q(x)=2x^2+5x-3=(2x-1)(x+3)$. Therefore, all zeros of $P(x)$ are $-3,\frac{1}{2},2$.

Example. Find all zeros of $P(x)=x^4-5x^3+23x+10$.

Solution. $a_n=1$ has factors $\pm 1$ and $a_0=10$ has factors $\pm 1, \pm 2, \pm 5, \pm10$. So all the candidates for a rational zero are
$$\pm 1, \pm 2, \pm 5, \pm10$$
Since $P(5)=0$, 5 is a rational zero. Using long division or synthetic division we find $Q(x)=x^3-5x-2$. We cannot factor this cubic polynomial readily so we repeat the process. The leading coeffient 1 has factors $\pm 1$ and the constant term $-2$ has factors $\pm 1,\pm 2$ so all the candidates for a rational zero of $Q(x)$ are $\pm 1,\pm 2$. $Q(-2)=0$ so $-2$ is a rational zero of $Q(x)$ (and hence of $P(x)$ as well). Using one’s favorite division we find the quotient $x^2-2x-1$ which has two real zeros $1\pm\sqrt{2}$. Therefore, all zeros of $P(x)$ are
$5, -2, 1\pm\sqrt{2}$.

It would be convenient if we can estimate how many positive real zeros and how many negative zeros without actually factoring the polynomial. Here is a machinary just for that.

Descartes’ Rule of Signs

Let $P(x)$ be a polynomial with real coefficients.

  1. The number of positive real zeros of $P(x)$ is either equal to the number of variations in sign in $P(x)$ or is less than that by an even number.
  2. The number of negative real zeros of $P(x)$ is either equal to the number of variations in sign in $P(-x)$ or is less than that by an even number.

Example. $P(x)=3x^6+4x^5+3x^3-x-3$ has one variation in sign so there is one positive real zero. $P(-x)=3x^6-4x^5-3x^3+x-3$ has three variations in sign so there can be either three negative zeros or one negative zero.

Upper and Lower Bounds for Real Zeros

Let $P(x)$ be a polynomial with real coefficients.

  1. If we divide $P(x)$ by $x-a$ ($a>0$) using synthetic division and if the row that contains the quotient and remainder has no negative entry, then $a$ is an upper bound for the real zeros of $P(x)$.
  2. If we divide $P(x)$ by $x-b$ ($b<0$) using synthetic division and if the row that contains the quotient and remainder has entries that are alternatively nonpositive and nonnegative, then $b$ is a lower bound for the real zeros of $P(x)$.

Example. If we divide $P(x)=3x^6+4x^5+3x^3-x-3$ by $x-1$ then
$$1|\begin{array}{cccccc}
3 & 4 & 3 & 0 & -1 & -3\\
& 3 & 7 & 10 & 10 & 9\\
\hline
3 & 7 & 10 & 10 & 9 & 6
\end{array}$$
Since the row that contains quotient and remainder has no negative entries, 1 is an upper bound for real zeros of $P(x)$. If we divide $P(x)$ by $x-(-2)$ then
$$-2|\begin{array}{cccccc}
3 & 4 & 3 & 0 & -1 & -3\\
& -6 & 4 & -14 & 28 & -54\\
\hline
3 & -2 & 7 & -14 & 27 & -57
\end{array}$$
The entries of the row that contains the quotient and remainder are alternatively nonpositive and nonnegative, so $-2$ is a lower bound for real zeros of $P(x)$. $P(x)$ in fact does not have any integer zeros but the upper and lower bounds helps us graphically locate the real zeros of $P(x)$. Also they can be used as initial estimates for Newton’s method, a method that can find approximations to real zeros of a polynomial. Figure 1 shows that there is one positive real zero and one negative real zero of $P(x)$.

Real zeros of P(x)=3x^6+4x^5+3x^3-x-3

Dividing Polynomials

Polynomials are nice in the sense that they behave like numbers. For polynomials Division Algorithm works as well namely Given polynomials $P(x)$ and $D(x)\ne 0$ there exist unique polynomials $Q(x)$ and $R(x)$ such that
$$P(x)=D(x)Q(x)+R(x)$$
or
$$\frac{P(x)}{D(x)}=Q(x)+\frac{R(x)}{D(x)}$$
$P(x)$, $D(x)$, $Q(x)$, and $R(x)$ are called, respectively, the dividend, divisor, quptient and remainder. There are two ways to divide a polynomial by another polynomial. The first one is the familiar long division and it works the same way we do with numbers.

Example. Let $P(x)=8x^4+6x^2-3x+1$ and $D(x)=2x^2-x+2$. Find polynomials $Q(x)$ and $R(x)$ such that $P(x)=D(x)Q(x)+R(x)$.

Solution.

Long division

Hence $Q(x)=4x^2+2x$ and $R(x)=-7x+1$.

The other method is called synthetic division. This method cannot be used for any polynomial divisions, however it works great when the divisor is a linear polynomial and is easier than long division. Synthetic division uses only coefficients without including variables as shown in the following example.

Example. Using synthetic division divide $2x^3-7x^2+5$ by $x-3$.

Solution.

Synthetic division

Hence we have $Q(x)=2x^2-x-3$ and $R=-4$.

If a polynomial $P(x)$ is divided by a linear polynomial $x-c$, by division algorithm $P(x)$ can be written as
$$P(x)=(x-c)Q(x)+R$$
for some $Q(x)$ and $R$. So, $P(c)=R$ and hence we obtain the Remainder Theorem.

Remainder Theorem. If a polynomial $P(x)$ is divided by $x-c$, then the remainder is $P(c)$.

Example. Let $P(x)=3x^5+5x^4-4x^3+7x+3$. Use the remainder theorem to find the remainder when $P(x)$ is divided by $x+2$.

Solution. $R=P(-2)=5$.

As a corollary of the remainder theorem we have

Factor Theorem. $c$ is a zero of $P(x)$ if and only if $x-c$ is a factor of $P(x)$.

Example. Let $P(x)=x^3-7x+6$. Show that $P(1)=0$ and use this information to factor $P(x)$ completely.

Solution. Dividing $P(x)$ by $x-1$ (using long division or synthetic division) we find $Q(x)=x^2+x-6$ and $R=0$ (of course as we expected). So,
\begin{align*}
P(x)&=(x-1)(x^2+x-6)\\
&=(x-1)(x-2)(x+3)
\end{align*}

Example. Find a polynomial of degree 4 that has zeros $-3$, 0, 1, and 5.

Solution. Such a polynomial would have $x+3$, $x$, $x-1$, and $x-5$ for its factors by the factor theorem. So the simplest one is
$$P(x)=(x+3)x(x-1)(x-5)=x^4-3x^3-13x^2+15x$$

The Proof of the Chain Rule

In this note, we introduce two versions of the proof of the Chain Rule. The first one comes from [1]. Let $y=f(u)$ and $u=g(x)$ be differentiable functions. We claim that
$$\frac{dy}{dx}=f'(u)g'(x)$$
The finite difference $\frac{f(g(x+h))-f(g(x))}{h}$ can be written as $\frac{f(u+k)-f(u)}{h}$ where $k=g(x+h)-g(x)$. Define $\varphi(t)=\frac{f(u+t)-f(u)}{t}-f'(u)$ if $t\ne 0$. Multiplying by $t$ and rearranging terms, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:chainpf}
f(u+t)-f(u)=t[\varphi(t)+f'(u)]
\end{equation}
$\lim_{t\to 0}\varphi(t)=0$ so we define $\varphi(0)=0$. Then \eqref{eq:chainpf} is defined for all $t$. Now replace $t$ in \eqref{eq:chainpf} by $k$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:chainpf2}
\frac{f(u+k)-f(u)}{h}=\frac{k}{h}[\varphi(k)+f'(u)]
\end{equation}
\eqref{eq:chainpf2} is valid even if $k=0$. When $h\to 0$, $\frac{k}{h}\to g'(x)$ and $\varphi(k)\to 0$. Hence the RHS of \eqref{eq:chainpf2} approaches $f'(u)g'(x)$. This completes the proof.

Another version of the proof of the Chain Rule is from [2] as a guided exercise (# 99 on page p. 559). Here we suppose that $y=f(u)$ is differentiable at $u_0=g(x_0)$ and $u=g(x)$ is differentiable at $x_0$. Then we claim that $y=f(g(x))$ is differentiable at $x=x_0$ and $$\left[\frac{dy}{dx}\right]_{x=x_0}=f'(u_0)g'(x_0)$$
Since $g'(x_0)$ exists, $\Delta u$ can be written as
$$\Delta u=g'(x_0)\Delta x+\rho(x)$$
where $\lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\frac{\rho(x)}{\Delta x}=0$. Similarly, if $\Delta u\ne 0$ (it could be 0), then $\Delta y$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:chainpf3}
\Delta y=f'(u_0)\Delta u+\sigma(u)
\end{equation}
where $\lim_{\Delta u\to 0}\frac{\sigma(u)}{\Delta u}=0$.
\begin{align*}
\Delta y&=f'(u_0)[g'(x_0)\Delta x+\rho(x)]+\sigma(g(x))\\
&=f'(u_0)g'(x_0)\Delta x+f'(u_0)\rho(x)+\sigma(x)
\end{align*}
As $\Delta u\to 0$, $\Delta y\to 0$ and accordingly $\sigma(u)\to 0$. So one can define $\sigma(U)=0$ if $\Delta u=0$ (that is one can define $\sigma(u_0)=\sigma(g(x_0))=0$). Then \eqref{eq:chainpf3} is still valid if $\Delta u=0$.
$$\frac{\sigma(g(x))}{\Delta x}=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{\sigma(g(x))}{\Delta u}\cdot\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x} & \mbox{if} & \Delta u\ne 0\\
0 & \mbox{if} & \Delta u=0\end{array}\right.\to 0$$
as $\Delta x\to 0$. Therefore,
$$\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}=f'(u_0)g'(x_0)+f'(u_0)\frac{\rho(x)}{\Delta x}+\frac{\sigma(g(x))}{\Delta x}$$
approaches
$$\frac{dy}{dx}=f'(u_0)g'(x_0)$$
as $\Delta x\to 0$.

References:

[1] Tom M. Apostol, Calculus, Volume I One-Variable Calculus with an Introduction to Linear Algebra, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967

[2] Jerrold Marsden and Alan Weinstein, Calculus II, Springer-Verlag, 1985