Re: Volume of a 3d figure
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Volume of a 3d figure
In any case, I appreciate your replies.
--
Matt Weintraub
neda@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/neda
"Your mouse cursor has moved.
NT must be restarted for this change
to take effect."
STL137 wrote in message <19990117150657.23381.00000203@ng25.aol.com>...
><<Really?
>Can you explain how "PiF(x)^2" IS a 3d solid?
>Will integrating this, well, it's not even a function, work for any 3d
>solid? From your post, it appears that you claim that integrating
>that whatevet it is, is how you find the volume under a surface. Can
>you elaborate?
>And where do you say how to do it on an 89?
>If you call your post, a coherent reply that told him how to find the
>volume of a 3D solid, may I ask you what color the sky is in your
>world?>>
>Integrating that gives you the volume of revolution for a function F(x).
The
>way to do in integral is in the 89 manual. For a volume of any 3D solid,
that's
>a whole lot nastier, and requires triple integral signs (from what I see in
>books). I have NO idea how to do those. Volumes of revolution, though,
those
>are easy.
References: