Asymptotes of an implicit function?

In summary, the conversation discusses a problem involving calculating the right asymptote of a function F(t) that approaches a line p = m t + b for t\rightarrow \infty. The speaker has an implicit definition of F(t) and a differential equation for another function G(t). They have solved for the slope m of the asymptote, but are stuck on finding the general expression for the intercept q. The conversation then delves into possible methods for finding q, including a more rigorous approach using dimensional analysis. The speaker later reports their progress in solving the differential equation for F(t), but is unable to find a simplified expression for the inverse of the function T(F). They propose finding the left asymptote of T(F) as a possible
  • #1
lavoisier
177
24
Hi everyone,
I've been working on a problem for some time and I seem to be able to solve only half of it.
I wonder if anyone can help me with it.

I want to calculate the right asymptote of a function F(t), i.e. a line p = m t + b such that F(t) approaches it for t[itex]\rightarrow \infty[/itex].

This would be pretty straightforward if I had an explicit definition p = F(t).
I don't.
What I have is a differential equation for another function G(t):

[itex]- \frac{dG(t)}{dt} = \frac{a + Q G(t) + c - \sqrt{(a + Q G(t) + c)^{2} - 4 Q G(t) c}}{2 V}[/itex]

where F(t) = Ln(G(t))
and a, Q, c and V are positive real constants.
The d.e. doesn't seem to be (easily) solvable.
So I tried another approach: leaving the function implicit.

The part that I solved by this approach was finding m (the slope of the asymptote).

I considered that:

[itex]- \frac{dF(t)}{dt} = - \frac{d Ln(G(t))}{dt} = - \frac{1}{G(t)}\frac{dG(t)}{dt} [/itex]

And note that from the theory that generated the above differential equation, I know that:

[itex]lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} G(t) = 0[/itex]

So I thought, as m is also F'(t) for t[itex]\rightarrow \infty[/itex], then:

[itex]m = lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{dF(t)}{dt} = lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{G(t)}\frac{dG(t)}{dt} = - lim_{G(t) \rightarrow 0} \frac{a + Q G(t) + c - \sqrt{(a + Q G(t) + c)^{2} - 4 Q G(t) c}}{2 V G(t)}[/itex]

I don't know if this is mathematically 'legal', but I did it anyway. I submitted the expression to Maxima and this is what came out:

[itex]m = - \frac{Q c}{V (a + c)}[/itex]

which seems correct when I try it out graphically.

Now, the part that I don't know how to do is to find the general expression for the intercept q.

What I know from the theory is that:

[itex]q = lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} F(t) - m t[/itex]

but as I don't have F(t), I'm stuck.
I thought of substituting F(t) = Ln(G(t)), but that of course gives me -∞ +∞.
I wondered if I could use the Hopital rule, but I think that only applies to ratios.

So... any suggestions on how I could do this (or if it's at all possible in this case)?

Thanks!
L
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
lavoisier said:
Hi everyone,
I've been working on a problem for some time and I seem to be able to solve only half of it.
I wonder if anyone can help me with it.

I want to calculate the right asymptote of a function F(t), i.e. a line p = m t + b such that F(t) approaches it for t[itex]\rightarrow \infty[/itex].

This would be pretty straightforward if I had an explicit definition p = F(t).
I don't.
What I have is a differential equation for another function G(t):

[itex]- \frac{dG(t)}{dt} = \frac{a + Q G(t) + c - \sqrt{(a + Q G(t) + c)^{2} - 4 Q G(t) c}}{2 V}[/itex]

where F(t) = Ln(G(t))
and a, Q, c and V are positive real constants.
The d.e. doesn't seem to be (easily) solvable.
So I tried another approach: leaving the function implicit.

The part that I solved by this approach was finding m (the slope of the asymptote).

I considered that:

[itex]- \frac{dF(t)}{dt} = - \frac{d Ln(G(t))}{dt} = - \frac{1}{G(t)}\frac{dG(t)}{dt} [/itex]

And note that from the theory that generated the above differential equation, I know that:

[itex]lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} G(t) = 0[/itex]

So I thought, as m is also F'(t) for t[itex]\rightarrow \infty[/itex], then:

[itex]m = lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{dF(t)}{dt} = lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{G(t)}\frac{dG(t)}{dt} = - lim_{G(t) \rightarrow 0} \frac{a + Q G(t) + c - \sqrt{(a + Q G(t) + c)^{2} - 4 Q G(t) c}}{2 V G(t)}[/itex]

I don't know if this is mathematically 'legal', but I did it anyway. I submitted the expression to Maxima and this is what came out:

[itex]m = - \frac{Q c}{V (a + c)}[/itex]

which seems correct when I try it out graphically.

Let [tex]
f(G) = -\frac{a + Q G(t) + c - \sqrt{(a + Q G(t) + c)^{2} - 4 Q G(t) c}}{2 V}
[/tex] so that [tex]
\frac{dG}{dt} = f(G).
[/tex] What you've done is to compute [tex]
f'(0) = \lim_{G \to 0} \frac{f(G) - f(0)}{G} = \lim_{G \to 0} \frac{f(G)}{G} = -\frac{Qc}{V(a + c)}
[/tex] since [itex]f(0) = 0[/itex].

The more rigorous method of obtaining [itex]f'(0)[/itex] as the slope of the asymptote of [itex]F[/itex] is to observe that since, for non-zero values of the parameters, [itex]f(G) < 0[/itex] for [itex]G > 0[/itex] and [itex]f(0) = 0[/itex], we must have [itex]G(t) \to 0[/itex] if [itex]G(0) > 0[/itex]. Expanding [itex]f[/itex] in a taylor series about [itex]G = 0[/itex] gives [tex]
\frac{dG}{dt} = f'(0)G + \frac{f''(0)}2 G^2 + \dots.
[/tex] Hence to leading order [tex]
\frac{dF}{dt} = \frac{1}{G}\frac{dG}{dt} \sim f'(0).[/tex]

Now, the part that I don't know how to do is to find the general expression for the intercept q.

What I know from the theory is that:

[itex]q = lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} F(t) - m t[/itex]

but as I don't have F(t), I'm stuck.

You're stuck; the intercept will in general depend on [itex]F(0)[/itex].
 
  • #3
Thanks pasmith.
Could you please just clarify, from your analysis, if you're saying that q exists but can't be calculated from the information I have, or that it doesn't exist as a single analytic expression?
FYI, I found that in a similar but simpler case:
[itex]q = ln(G(0))+G(0) \frac{Q}{a}[/itex]
Would dimensional analysis help perhaps?
Thanks
L
 
  • #4
Just wanted to report my progress with this problem.

I found that it's actually possible to solve the d.e. in F(t):

[itex]- \frac{dF(t)}{dt} = \frac{a + Q e^{F(t)} + c - \sqrt{(a + Q e^{F(t)} + c)^{2} - 4 Q e^{F(t)} c}}{2 V e^{F(t)}}[/itex]

What I get is an implicit expression:

[itex]t + constant = T(F) [/itex]

I plugged in the initial conditions to find;

[itex]t = T(F) - T(F_{0}) [/itex]

T(F) is a rather complicated function, where F, exp(F), a square root of a function of exp(F) and two asinh of a function of exp(F) are summed. I tried to simplify it (e.g. by expressing asinh as the logarithm), but with no success. I only got more complicated stuff.
Bottom line is, I don't think the solution of the d.e. can be inverted to give F(t).

However, I thought that if I could find the left asymptote of T(F) (because F tends to -∞ when G tends to 0+), the asymptote of its inverse would just be found by swapping t and F.

I 'did the maths', and indeed, I could find the slope and intercept for T(F).
The slope was the same that I had derived before. The intercept was a rather complicated function, similar to T(F0).

I checked it numerically, and it worked!

As I said before, I don't know how 'legal' any of these operations are in terms of pure mathematics, but hey, I'm taking a pragmatic approach - if it does the job...

The next thing I need to do is to find this integral:

[itex]\int^{+∞}_{0} G(t) dt[/itex]

Not sure how I might do that, when I haven't got F(t). I don't suppose one can integrate an implicit expression and then invert it in some way.
Taylor wouldn't work on integrals, would it?

Thanks
L
 
  • #5
una

Hello Luna,

Thank you for sharing your problem with us. Asymptotes of implicit functions can be tricky to find, but there are some methods you can use to approach this problem.

First, I would recommend trying to find an explicit form for the function G(t) by solving the differential equation. This may involve using numerical methods or approximations, but having an explicit form for G(t) will make it easier to find the asymptote of F(t).

If that is not possible, another approach is to use the concept of a horizontal asymptote. A horizontal asymptote is a line that the function approaches as t increases or decreases without bound. In this case, you can use the fact that F(t) = Ln(G(t)) and the limit of G(t) as t approaches infinity is 0. This means that the horizontal asymptote of F(t) will be at y = -∞, since Ln(0) = -∞. Similarly, the horizontal asymptote for F(t) as t approaches negative infinity will be at y = ∞.

Another method you can try is to use the Taylor series expansion of F(t) around the point t = ∞. This will give you an expression for F(t) in terms of G(t) and its derivatives. From there, you can use the known value of m (the slope of the asymptote) to solve for the intercept q.

I hope these suggestions help you in finding the asymptotes of your implicit function. Good luck with your problem!
 

What is an asymptote of an implicit function?

An asymptote of an implicit function is a line or curve that a function approaches but never touches. It can be either a horizontal, vertical, or oblique line and is typically found in rational functions.

How do you find the asymptotes of an implicit function?

To find the asymptotes of an implicit function, you can use the following steps:

  1. Set the function equal to y.
  2. Identify any restrictions on the domain of the function (such as division by zero).
  3. Take the limit of the function as x approaches positive or negative infinity.
  4. If the limit is a finite number, then there is a horizontal asymptote at that value of y.
  5. If the limit is either positive or negative infinity, then there is a vertical asymptote at the corresponding value of x.
  6. If the limit is a finite number but different for different values of x, then there is an oblique asymptote.

What is the difference between a vertical and horizontal asymptote?

A vertical asymptote is a line that the function approaches but never touches as x approaches a certain value, while a horizontal asymptote is a line that the function approaches but never touches as x approaches positive or negative infinity.

Can an implicit function have more than one asymptote?

Yes, an implicit function can have multiple asymptotes. It can have both vertical and horizontal asymptotes, or even multiple of each type.

Why are asymptotes important in mathematics?

Asymptotes are important in mathematics because they help us understand the behavior of a function as it approaches certain values or infinity. They can also help us identify the domain and range of a function, and make graphing and solving equations easier.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
228
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
719
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
651
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
910
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top