I just came across an integration problem. It is very easy to plug numbers into the steps of the solved problem and arrive at the right answer, but I don't understand one of the choices of formulas within the solution chain. Here is the whole problem:
A solid lies between planes perpendicular to the $x$-axis of $x=0$ and $x=14$. The cross-sections perpendicular to the axis on the interval $0\leq x\leq\ 14$ are squares (Squares? What the heck??) with diagonals that run from the parabola $y=-2\sqrt{x}$ to parabola $y=2\sqrt{x}$. Find the volume of the solid.
So, I am really bothered by the way that this problem uses the words "cross-sections," "squares," and "diagonals." I feel as though none of the math that I learned that lead up to this has really prepared me to be able to look at a graph of the said parabola and just come up with this solution chain. There is absolutely nothing "diagonal" looking about the graph of this problem.
The solution chain also gives $\dfrac{D^2}2$ as the formula $A(x)$ to use as the formula for area. But why???? I can easily plug the length of the line segment that runs parallel to the $y$-axis into $A(x)$ and get $\dfrac{(|y_1|+|y_2|)^2}2 = \dfrac{(4\sqrt{x})^2}2 = 8x$. I can also easily integrate $\int^{14}_{0} 8x\,dx = 784$ cubic units. But I would never think to use $\dfrac{D^2}2$ in this problem out without looking at the solution, and I this greatly bothers me!!!
Am I supposed to be thinking of this problem in three dimensions?