0
$\begingroup$

Every source I find lists the surface area of a sphere as $4\pi \times r^2$. Couldn't you write it as $D^2\times \pi$? This works every time I tested it, and it's a simplified version of the original equation. Why do mathematicians make it so much more complicated? I remembered proving the $4\pi \times r^2$ back in math class years ago, and I asked the teacher why wouldn't the diameter squared times pi equation work. She couldn't find a reason why it wouldn't! Please explain.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See the tau manifesto versus the pi manifesto for similar arguments/concerns. The end result is that both are correct, and whichever you use is your own personal preference. $\endgroup$ – JMoravitz Apr 24 '17 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ Honestly using diameter over radius only has practical applications as it's easier to measure the diameter in practice (hence often formulas in engineering refer to diameters of pipes/cylindrical objects) $\endgroup$ – Triatticus Apr 24 '17 at 20:25
1
$\begingroup$

As the diameter is twice the radius ($d=2r$), obviously: $$ \pi\cdot d^2=\pi\cdot(2r)^2=\pi\cdot 4\cdot r^2=4\pi r^2 $$

But mathematicians generally consider the radius more fundamental than the diameter, probably to a non-insignifant degree because of tradition, but as an example the radius occurs naturally in the equation of a circle, and therefore we prefer to express formulas using the radius.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That's kind of annoying, but at least I'm not wrong ;) Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Bobdabiulder Apr 24 '17 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ From a purely aesthetic point of view, generally using $r$ seems nicer since it avoids fractions where possible, for example in $\pi r^2$ as opposed to $\frac{1}{4} \pi d^2$ $\endgroup$ – LtSten Apr 24 '17 at 20:00
1
$\begingroup$

A sphere is more cleanly discribe as the set of points which are at a distance $d \leq r$ from some fixed "center" point, where $r$ is the radius of the sphere.

You can of course describe a sphere in terms of its diameter $D$, but unless you cheat and use the radius (as in "the set of points witin $D/2$ of some fixed point") the description becomes much more difficult.

"A sphere is a set of points such that the distances between each pair of points is no more than $D$." It is true that this definition is equivalent to the usual definition of a sphere, but that is not a trivial fact!

Since the radius is a more natural property of the sphere, formuas for the volume and the surface area are usually expressed in terms of $R$, not $D$.

However, it is perfectly fine to say that $A = D^2 \pi$. Just don't think you can go from circle (circumference$ = D\pi$) to sphere (surface $= D^2 \pi$) to hypersphere (hyper-surface $= D^3 \pi$) because that last statement is simply not true!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why can't you go from circle to sphere? What do you mean? Also, in what case does a sphere exist in >3 dimensions? Experimental physics? $\endgroup$ – Bobdabiulder Apr 24 '17 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ Dimensions greater than 3 is just a natural extension to euclidean space, and as such it's natural to ask what the surface area of a hypersphere is. Sometimes optimization problems involve higher dimensional spaces because of a large amount of conditions/variables $\endgroup$ – Triatticus Apr 24 '17 at 20:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.