Gabriel's horn

3D illustration of Gabriel's horn

Torricelli's truncated acute hyperbolic solid with the added cylinder (in red) used by his proof

A Gabriel's horn (also called Torricelli's trumpet) is a type of geometric figure that has infinite surface area but finite volume. The name refers to the Christian tradition where the archangel Gabriel blows the horn to announce Judgment Day. The properties of this figure were first studied by Italian physicist and mathematician Evangelista Torricelli in the 17th century.

These colourful informal names and the allusion to religion came along later.Template:Sfn Torricelli's own name for it is to be found in the Latin title of his paper {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, written in 1643, a truncated acute hyperbolic solid, cut by a plane.Template:Sfn Volume 1, part 1 of his {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} published the following year included that paper and a second more orthodox (for the time) Archimedean proof of its theorem about the volume of a truncated acute hyperbolic solid.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn This name was used in mathematical dictionaries of the 18th century, including "Hyperbolicum Acutum" in Harris' 1704 dictionary and in Stone's 1726 one, and the French translation {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} in d'Alembert's 1751 one.Template:Sfn

Although credited with primacy by his contemporaries, Torricelli was not the first to describe an infinitely long shape with a finite volume or area.Template:Sfn The work of Nicole Oresme in the 14th century had either been forgotten by, or was unknown to them.Template:Sfn Oresme had posited such things as an infinitely long shape constructed by subdividing two squares of finite total area 2 using a geometric series and rearranging the parts into a figure, infinitely long in one dimension, comprising a series of rectangles.Template:Sfn

Mathematical definitionEdit

File:Rectangular hyperbola.svg

Graph of <math>y = 1/x</math>

Gabriel's horn is formed by taking the graph of <math display="block">y = \frac{1}{x},</math> with the domain <math>x \ge 1</math> and rotating it in three dimensions about the Template:Mvar axis. The discovery was made using Cavalieri's principle before the invention of calculus, but today, calculus can be used to calculate the volume and surface area of the horn between Template:Math and Template:Math, where Template:Math.Template:Sfn Using integration (see Solid of revolution and Surface of revolution for details), it is possible to find the volume Template:Mvar and the surface area Template:Mvar: <math display="block">V = \pi\int_1^a \left(\frac{1}{x}\right)^2 \,\mathrm{d}x = \pi\left(1 - \frac{1}{a}\right),</math> <math display="block">A = 2\pi\int_1^a \frac{1}{x} \sqrt{1 + \left(-\frac{1}{x^2}\right)^2} \,\mathrm{d}x > 2\pi\int_1^a \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x} = 2\pi \cdot \left[\ln x \right]_{1}^{a} = 2\pi\ln a.</math>

The value Template:Mvar can be as large as required, but it can be seen from the equation that the volume of the part of the horn between Template:Math and Template:Math will never exceed Template:Pi; however, it does gradually draw nearer to Template:Pi as Template:Mvar increases. Mathematically, the volume approaches Template:Pi as Template:Mvar approaches infinity. Using the limit notation of calculus,Template:Sfn <math display="block">\lim_{a\to\infty} V = \lim_{a\to\infty} \pi\left(1 - \frac{1}{a}\right) = \pi \cdot \lim_{a\to\infty}\left(1 - \frac{1}{a}\right) = \pi.</math>

The surface area formula above gives a lower bound for the area as 2Template:Pi times the natural logarithm of Template:Mvar. There is no upper bound for the natural logarithm of Template:Mvar, as Template:Mvar approaches infinity. That means, in this case, that the horn has an infinite surface area. That is to say,Template:Sfn <math display="block">\lim_{a\to\infty} A \ge \lim_{a\to\infty} 2\pi\ln a = \infty.</math>

In {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}Edit

File:Trompette de Gabriel (volume3).PNG

Torricelli's proof demonstrated that the volume of the truncated acute hyperbolic solid and added cylinder is the same as the volume of the red cylinder via application of Cavalieri's indivisibles, mapping cylinders from the former to circles in the latter with the range <math display="inline">1/b \ge y \ge 0</math>, which is both the height of the latter cylinder and the radius of the base in the former.

Torricelli's original non-calculus proof used an object, slightly different to the aforegiven, that was constructed by truncating the acute hyperbolic solid with a plane perpendicular to the x axis and extending it from the opposite side of that plane with a cylinder of the same base.Template:Sfn Whereas the calculus method proceeds by setting the plane of truncation at <math>x = 1</math> and integrating along the x axis, Torricelli proceeded by calculating the volume of this compound solid (with the added cylinder) by summing the surface areas of a series of concentric right cylinders within it along the y axis and showing that this was equivalent to summing areas within another solid whose (finite) volume was known.Template:Sfn

In modern terminology this solid was created by constructing a surface of revolution of the function (for strictly positive Template:Mvar)Template:Sfn

<math>

\quad{}y = \begin{cases} 
       \dfrac{1}{c}, & \text{where }0 \le x \le b, \\
       \dfrac{1}{x}, & \text{where }b \le x.
   \end{cases}

</math>

and Torricelli's theorem was that its volume is the same as the volume of the right cylinder with height <math>1/b</math> and radius <math>\sqrt{2}</math>:Template:Sfn Template:Sfn

Theorem. An acute hyperbolic solid, infinitely long, cut by a plane [perpendicular] to the axis, together with the cylinder of the same base, is equal to that right cylinder of which the base is the latus versum (that is, the axis) of the hyperbola, and of which the altitude is equal to the radius of the basis of this acute body.{{#if:{{#invoke:Lang|lang}}. Evangelista Torricelli. 1643. Translated G. Loria and G. Vassura 1919.Template:Sfn|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries
}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

Torricelli showed that the volume of the solid could be derived from the surface areas of this series of concentric right cylinders whose radii were <math>1/b \ge r \ge 0</math> and heights <math>h = 1/r</math>.Template:Sfn Substituting in the formula for the surface areas of (just the sides of) these cylinders yields a constant surface area for all cylinders of <math>2\pi r h = 2\pi r \times 1/r = 2\pi</math>.Template:Sfn This is also the area of a circle of radius <math>\sqrt{2},</math> and the nested surfaces of the cylinders (filling the volume of the solid) are thus equivalent to the stacked areas of the circles of radius <math>\sqrt{2}</math> stacked from 0 to <math>1/b</math>, and hence the volume of the aforementioned right cylinder, which is known to be <math>V = \pi r^2 h = \pi(\sqrt{2})^2 \times 1/b = 2\pi/b</math>:Template:Sfn

{{#invoke:Lang|lang}}
(Therefore all the surfaces of the cylinders taken together, that is the acute solid <math>EBD</math> itself, is the same as the cylinder of base <math>FEDC</math>, which will be equal to all its circles taken together, that is to cylinder <math>ACGH</math>.)
{{#if:{{#invoke:Lang|lang}}. Evangelista Torricelli. 1643. Translated by Jacqueline A. Stedall, 2013.Template:Sfn|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries
}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

(The volume of the added cylinder is of course <math>V_c = \pi r^2 \times h = \pi(1/b)^2 \times b = \pi/b</math> and thus the volume of the truncated acute hyperbolic solid alone is <math>V_s = V - V_c = 2\pi/b - \pi/b = \pi/b</math>. If <math>b = 1</math>, as in the modern calculus derivation, <math>V_s = \pi</math>.)

In the {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} this is one of two proofs of the volume of the (truncated) acute hyperbolic solid.Template:Sfn The use of Cavalieri's indivisibles in this proof was controversial at the time and the result shocking (Torricelli later recording that Gilles de Roberval had attempted to disprove it); so when the {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} was published, the year after {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, Torricelli also supplied a second proof based upon orthodox Archimedean principles showing that the right cylinder (height <math>1/b</math> radius <math>\sqrt{2}</math>) was both upper and lower bound for the volume.Template:Sfn Ironically, this was an echo of Archimedes' own caution in supplying two proofs, mechanical and geometrical, in his Quadrature of the Parabola to Dositheus.Template:Sfn

Apparent paradoxEdit

When the properties of Gabriel's horn were discovered, the fact that the rotation of an infinitely large section of the Template:Mvar plane about the Template:Mvar axis generates an object of finite volume was considered a paradox. While the section lying in the Template:Mvar plane has an infinite area, any other section parallel to it has a finite area. Thus the volume, being calculated from the "weighted sum" of sections, is finite.

Another approach is to treat the solid as a stack of disks with diminishing radii. The sum of the radii produces a harmonic series that goes to infinity. However, the correct calculation is the sum of their squares. Every disk has a radius Template:Math and an area Template:Math or Template:Math. The series Template:Math diverges, but the series Template:Math converges. In general, for any real Template:Math, the series Template:Math converges. (see Particular values of the Riemann zeta function for more detail on this result)

The apparent paradox formed part of a dispute over the nature of infinity involving many of the key thinkers of the time, including Thomas Hobbes, John Wallis, and Galileo Galilei.Template:Sfn

File:Gabriel horn 2d.svg

The analogue of Gabriel's horn in two dimensions has an area of 2 but infinite perimeter

There is a similar phenomenon that applies to lengths and areas in the plane. The area between the curves Template:Math and Template:Math from 1 to infinity is finite, but the lengths of the two curves are clearly infinite.

In lecture 16 of his 1666 {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, Isaac Barrow held that Torricelli's theorem had constrained Aristotle's general dictum (from De Caelo book 1, part 6) that "there is no proportion between the finite and the infinite".Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Aristotle had himself, strictly speaking, been making a case for the impossibility of the physical existence of an infinite body rather than a case for its impossibility as a geometrical abstract.Template:Sfn Barrow had been adopting the contemporary 17th-century view that Aristotle's dictum and other geometrical axioms were (as he had said in lecture 7) from "some higher and universal science", underpinning both mathematics and physics.Template:Sfn Thus Torricelli's demonstration of an object with a relation between a finite (volume) and an infinite (area) contradicted this dictum, at least in part.Template:Sfn Barrow's explanation was that Aristotle's dictum still held, but only in a more limited fashion when comparing things of the same type, length with length, area with area, volume with volume, and so forth.Template:Sfn It did not hold when comparing things of two different genera (area with volume, for example) and thus an infinite area could be connected to a finite volume.Template:Sfn

Others used Torricelli's theorem to bolster their own philosophical claims, unrelated to mathematics from a modern viewpoint.Template:Sfn Ignace-Gaston Pardies in 1671 used the acute hyperbolic solid to argue that finite humans could comprehend the infinite, and proceeded to offer it as proof of the existences of God and immaterial souls.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Since finite matter could not comprehend the infinite, Pardies argued, the fact that humans could comprehend this proof showed that humans must be more than matter, and have immaterial souls.Template:Sfn In contrast, Antoine Arnauld argued that because humans perceived a paradox here, human thought was limited in what it could comprehend, and thus is not up to the task of disproving divine, religious, truths.Template:Sfn

Hobbes' and Wallis' dispute was actually within the realm of mathematics: Wallis enthusiastically embracing the new concepts of infinity and indivisibles, proceeding to make further conclusions based upon Torricelli's work and to extend it to employ arithmetic rather than Torricelli's geometric arguments; and Hobbes claiming that since mathematics is derived from real world perceptions of finite things, "infinite" in mathematics can only mean "indefinite".Template:Sfn These led to strongly worded letters by each to the Royal Society and in Philosophical Transactions, Hobbes resorting to namecalling Wallis "mad" at one point.Template:Sfn In 1672 Hobbes tried to re-cast Torricelli's theorem as about a finite solid that was extended indefinitely, in an attempt to hold on to his contention that "natural light" (i.e. common sense) told us that an infinitely long thing must have an infinite volume.Template:Sfn This aligned with Hobbes' other assertions that the use of the idea of a zero-width line in geometry was erroneous, and that Cavalieri's idea of indivisibles was ill-founded.Template:Sfn Wallis argued that there existed geometrical shapes with finite area/volume but no centre of gravity based upon Torricelli, stating that understanding this required more of a command of geometry and logic "than M. Hobs Template:Sic is Master of".Template:Sfn He also restructured the arguments in arithmetical terms as the sums of arithmetic progressions, sequences of arithmetic infinitesimals rather than sequences of geometric indivisibles.Template:Sfn

Oresme had already demonstrated that an infinitely long shape can have a finite area where, as one dimension tends towards infinitely large, another dimension tends towards infinitely small.Template:Sfn In Barrow's own words "the infinite diminution of one dimension compensates for the infinite increase of the other",Template:Sfn in the case of the acute hyperbolic solid by the equation of the Apollonian hyperbola <math display="inline">xy=1</math>.Template:Sfn

Painter's paradoxEdit

Since the horn has finite volume but infinite surface area, there is an apparent paradox that the horn could be filled with a finite quantity of paint and yet that paint would not be sufficient to coat its surface.Template:Sfn However, this paradox is again only an apparent paradox caused by an incomplete definition of "paint", or by using contradictory definitions of paint for the actions of filling and painting.Template:Sfn

One could be postulating a "mathematical" paint that is infinitely divisible (or can be infinitely thinned, or simply zero-width like the zero-width geometric lines that Hobbes took issue with) and capable of travelling at infinite speed, or a "physical" paint with the properties of paint in the real world.Template:Sfn With either one, the apparent paradox vanishes:Template:Sfn

With "mathematical" paint, it does not follow in the first place that an infinite surface area requires an infinite volume of paint, as infinite surface area times zero-thickness paint is indeterminate.Template:Sfn

With physical paint, painting the outside of the solid would require an infinite amount of paint because physical paint has a non-zero thickness. Torricelli's theorem does not talk about a layer of finite width on the outside of the solid, which in fact would have infinite volume. Thus there is no contradiction between infinite volume of paint and infinite surface area to cover.Template:Sfn It is also impossible to paint the interior of the solid, the finite volume of Torricelli's theorem, with physical paint, so no contradiction exists.Template:Sfn This is because physical paint can only fill an approximation of the volume of the solid.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn The molecules do not completely tile 3-dimensional space and leave gaps, and there is a point where the "throat" of the solid becomes too narrow for paint molecules to flow down.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn

Physical paint travels at a bounded speed and would take an infinite amount of time to flow down.Template:Sfn This also applies to "mathematical" paint of zero thickness if one does not additionally postulate it flowing at infinite speed.Template:Sfn

Other different postulates of "mathematical" paint, such as infinite-speed paint that gets thinner at a fast enough rate, remove the paradox too. For volume <math>\pi</math> of paint, as the surface area to be covered Template:Mvar tends towards infinity, the thickness of the paint <math>\pi/A</math> tends towards zero.Template:Sfn Like with the solid itself, the infinite increase of the surface area to be painted in one dimension is compensated by the infinite decrease in another dimension, the thickness of the paint.

Discrete versionEdit

"Gabriel's wedding cake" is a discrete version of Gabriel's horn, in which the continuous horn shape is approximated by an infinite series of cylinders, but shares the same overall properties as the continuous version; the name derives from the similarity to a multi-tiered wedding cake. It has been used as a teaching tool for students who are not yet familiar with calculus.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Fleron, Julian F. "Gabriel’s Wedding Cake". The College Mathematics Journal, January 1999, Volume 30, Number 1, pp. 35-38</ref>

ConverseEdit

File:Cissoide de Sluse.PNG

René-François de Sluse once tongue-in-cheek remarked that this solid of rotation of a (half) cissoid formed a lightweight goblet that even the heaviest drinker could not empty, because it itself has finite volume but encloses an infinite volume. It is not claimed to have a finite surface area, however.

The converse of Torricelli's acute hyperbolic solid would be a surface of revolution that has a finite surface area but an infinite volume.

In response to Torricelli's theorem, after learning of it from Marin Mersenne, Christiaan Huygens and René-François de Sluse wrote letters to each other about extending the theorem to other infinitely long solids of revolution; which have been mistakenly identified as finding such a converse.Template:Sfn

Jan A. van Maanen, professor of mathematics at the University of Utrecht, reported in the 1990s that he once mis-stated in a conference at Kristiansand that de Sluse wrote to Huygens in 1658 that he had found such a shape:Template:Sfn

{{#invoke:Lang|lang}}
(I give the measurements of a drinking glass (or vase), that has a small weight, but that even the hardest drinker could not empty.)
{{#if:de Sluse in a letter to Huygens, translation Jan A. van MaanenTemplate:Sfn|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries
}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

to be told in response (by Tony Gardiner and Man-Keung Siu of the University of Hong Kong) that any surface of rotation with a finite surface area would of necessity have a finite volume.Template:Sfn

Professor van Maanen realized that this was a misinterpretation of de Sluse's letter, and that what de Sluse was actually reporting that the solid "goblet" shape, formed by rotating the cissoid of Diocles and its asymptote about the y axis, had a finite volume (and hence "small weight") and enclosed a cavity of infinite volume.Template:Sfn

Huygens first showed that the area of the rotated two-dimensional shape (between the cissoid and its asymptote) was finite, calculating its area to be 3 times the area of the generating circle of the cissoid, and de Sluse applied Pappus's centroid theorem to show that the solid of revolution thus has finite volume, being a product of that finite area and the finite orbit of rotation.Template:Sfn The area being rotated is finite; de Sluse did not actually say anything about the surface area of the resultant rotated volume.Template:Sfn

Such a converse essentially cannot occur:

Let Template:Mvar be a connected subset of <math>\mathbb R</math>. Let Template:Mvar be a continuously differentiable real-valued function over Template:Mvar. If the solid of revolution generated by revolving Template:Math about the Template:Mvar-axis has finite surface area Template:Mvar, it also has finite volume.

Template:Math proof