The Lengthening Shadow: The Story of Related Rates
Bill Austin University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, TN 38238
Don Barry Phillips Academy, Andover, MA 01810
David Berman University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148
February 2000, Volume 73, Number 1, pp. 3–12.
boy is walking away from a lamppost. How fast is his shadow moving? A ladder
is resting against a wall. If the base is moved out from the wall, how fast is the
top of the ladder moving down the wall?
Such “related rates problems” are old chestnuts of introductory calculus, used both to
show the derivative as a rate of change and to illustrate implicit differentiation. Now that
some “reform” texts [
] have broken the tradition of devoting a section to related
rates, it is of interest to note that these problems originated in calculus reform
movements of the 19th century.
Ritchie, related rates, and calculus reform
Related rates problems as we know them date back at least to 1836, when the Rev.
William Ritchie (1790–1837), professor of Natural Philosophy at London University
1832–1837, and the predecessor of J. J. Sylvester in that position, published
of the Differential and Integral Calculus
. His text [
, p. 47] included such problems as:
If a halfpenny be placed on a hot shovel, so as to expand uniformly, at what rate
increasing when the diameter is passing the limit of 1 inch and 1/10,
the diameter being supposed to increase
at the rate of .01 of an inch per
This related rates problem was no mere practical application; it was central to Ritchie’s
reform-minded pedagogical approach to calculus. He sought to simplify the presentation
of calculus so that the subject would be more accessible to the ordinary, non-university
student whose background might include only “the elements of Geometry and the
principles of Algebra as far as the end of quadratic equations” [
, p. v]. Ritchie hoped
to rectify what he saw as a deplorable state of affairs:
The Fluxionary or Differential and Integral Calculus has within these few years
become almost entirely a science of symbols and mere algebraic formulae, with
scarcely any illustration or practical application. Clothed as it is in a
transcendental dress, the ordinary student is afraid to approach it; and even many
of those whose resources allow them to repair to the Universities do not appear to
derive all the advantages which might be expected from the study of this
interesting branch of mathematical science.
Ritchie’s own background was not that of the typical mathematics professor. He had
trained for the ministry, but after leaving the church, he attended scientific lectures in
Paris, and “soon acquired great skill in devising and performing experiments in natural
philosophy. He became known to Sir John Herschel, and through him [Ritchie]
communicated [papers] to the Royal Society” [
, p. 1212]. This led to his appointment
as the professor of natural philosophy at London University in 1832.