Register to reply

Some silly modeling question

by marmot
Tags: modeling, silly
Share this thread:
marmot
#1
Feb26-09, 11:00 PM
P: 53
so my bro ahd an algebra 2 midterm and a question was this:

) A printer costs $35,000 (how old are these questions lol) but it depreciates 5% a year. What is the value by the 4th year?

ok so being an overtly complex person i tried to model a differential equation of this just for the kicks.

At first I thought

dP/dt=-0.05P

where P is price

and the solution is Po*exp(-0.5t) where Po=35000

however this is wrong. So I assumed I did not know r from dP/dt=-rP and worked the problem by finding the initial values.

so the solution gives me P=exp(-.051293t)Po which is correct.

I dont grasp intuitively the answer. why is dP/dt=.051293P when the problem says it goes down 0.5 each year so I assume P changes over time by -0.05P per year?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Fungus deadly to AIDS patients found to grow on trees
Canola genome sequence reveals evolutionary 'love triangle'
Scientists uncover clues to role of magnetism in iron-based superconductors
csprof2000
#2
Feb26-09, 11:32 PM
P: 287
The correct equation is, of course.

P = P_0 * (0.95)^t.

Another way of writing this is:

P = P_0 * exp(ln(0.95)*t).

As you probably have already guessed, ln(0.95) is the number you need.

ln(0.95) = -.051293, approximately.
marmot
#3
Feb26-09, 11:36 PM
P: 53
yeah, thats true. i already knew that but, why isnt dP/dt=-0.5P!!! it does not make sense in my mind. it seems that the changing rate of P is -0.5 P per year

csprof2000
#4
Feb27-09, 07:30 AM
P: 287
Some silly modeling question

Almost certainly because 0.5 isn't the instantaneous rate, but the "average" yearly rate.

What you should say is that the integral from 0 to 1 of e^r equals -0.05...

then e^r = 0.95 and r = ln(0.95).

In fact, that's exactly it. You can't substitute the average (or cumulative, to put it in better terms) rate for the instantaneous rate.
marmot
#5
Feb27-09, 01:51 PM
P: 53
that makes a lot of sense! because i can still integrate from 0 to .1 and that wouldnt obviously be right.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Silly question Academic Guidance 4
Silly question but uhh Introductory Physics Homework 3
Silly NMR Question Chemistry 3
Very silly question... Astronomy & Astrophysics 5
Silly question General Physics 4