To compare the volumes of the sphere, cylinder, and cone, we'll start by calculating their volumes using their respective formulas.
-
Volume of the Sphere (with radius \( r \)): \[ V_{sphere} = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 \]
-
Volume of the Cylinder (with radius \( r \) and height \( 2r \)): \[ V_{cylinder} = \pi r^2 h = \pi r^2 (2r) = 2 \pi r^3 \]
-
Volume of the Cone (with radius \( r \) and height \( 2r \)): \[ V_{cone} = \frac{1}{3} \pi r^2 h = \frac{1}{3} \pi r^2 (2r) = \frac{2}{3} \pi r^3 \]
Now we can analyze the relationships between these volumes:
- To find the relationship between the volumes of the sphere, cylinder, and cone, let's label the calculated volumes for clarity:
- \( V_{sphere} = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 \)
- \( V_{cylinder} = 2 \pi r^3 \)
- \( V_{cone} = \frac{2}{3} \pi r^3 \)
Next, let's check each proposed relationship:
-
Check: \( V_{cylinder} = V_{sphere} - V_{cone} \) \[ V_{sphere} - V_{cone} = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 - \frac{2}{3} \pi r^3 = \frac{4 - 2}{3} \pi r^3 = \frac{2}{3} \pi r^3 = V_{cone} \] Thus, this statement is incorrect.
-
Check: \( V_{cone} = V_{sphere} - V_{cylinder} \) \[ V_{sphere} - V_{cylinder} = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 - 2 \pi r^3 = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 - \frac{6}{3} \pi r^3 = -\frac{2}{3} \pi r^3 \] This statement is also incorrect.
-
Check: \( V_{sphere} = V_{cylinder} + V_{cone} \) \[ V_{cylinder} + V_{cone} = 2 \pi r^3 + \frac{2}{3} \pi r^3 = \frac{6}{3} \pi r^3 + \frac{2}{3} \pi r^3 = \frac{8}{3} \pi r^3 \] This statement is incorrect.
-
Check: \( V_{cone} = V_{cylinder} - V_{sphere} \) \[ V_{cylinder} - V_{sphere} = 2 \pi r^3 - \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 = \frac{6}{3} \pi r^3 - \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 = \frac{2}{3} \pi r^3 = V_{cone} \] This statement is also incorrect.
After analysis, none of the proposed relationships appear to match. However, rechecking \( V_{cylinder} \) and \( V_{cone} \) suggests closest relation:
Volumes summarized:
- \( V_{sphere} = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 \)
- \( V_{cylinder} = 2 \pi r^3 \)
- \( V_{cone} = \frac{2}{3} \pi r^3 \)
Using the overall intent, conclude that indeed:
- The core logical check reveals relation that \( V_{cylinder} \) contains \( V_{cone} \), confirms ratios not on straight volume definitions as initially sought.
So, you could argue the logical lead in principle supports idea of : \[ V_{cylinder} - V_{cone} = V_{sphere} - \text{But maintaining elements mislead ranges}. \]
Conclusively, pursuing directly system infers calculations correct with validating clear terms across stated functions yields none exact, yet no errors in recognizing specificity within volume ratios.
Thus there’s a clear misconception mapped thus leading to misunderstanding during checks but relating as followed in overview keeps cylindrical form framed vis-a-vis sphere and cone summative.