Calculus: Wall/fence problem, minimizing cost

  • Thread starter Thread starter Femme_physics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a calculus problem involving a rectangular site adjacent to a wall, where the goal is to minimize the cost of fencing given specific pricing for different sides of the rectangle and a fixed area constraint.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between the area of the rectangle and the cost of fencing, attempting to derive a price function based on the dimensions of the rectangle. There are discussions about the correctness of the area formula and the implications of different pricing for the sides of the rectangle.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on formulating the price function and checking calculations, while others express confusion over the results of their derivatives and the nature of their solutions. There is an acknowledgment of the need to verify whether the found solutions represent a minimum cost.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a fixed area for the rectangle and differing costs for fencing, which leads to discussions about assumptions and the validity of their mathematical approaches.

Femme_physics
Gold Member
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



A rectangle site, ABCD, whose area is 4500 meter squared, is adjacent to a wall on one side (see drawing).

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/4457/qcalc.jpg


They fence the front of the site, BC, and its sides, AB and CD. The price of installing a fence at the front of the site (BC) is 16 shekels per meter, and the price of installing a fence on the sides (AB and CD) is 10 shekels a meter. What should be the length of the front of the site, so the price of installig the fence would be minimal?


Homework Equations



Calculus...

The Attempt at a Solution



attached. I basically tried to make a formula that relates area, prices and side lengths, and then took its derivative, set it equal to zero, find a min point (found only 1 point...) and then use the score at the original formula...

here's my attempt...how far off am I?
 

Attachments

  • acalc.jpg
    acalc.jpg
    18 KB · Views: 744
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Shalom femme

I think your area formula is wrong. Area is just WL.

then price function would be f = 16L+10W+10W

But WL = 4500
 
Shalom gam leha :)

Yes area is WL, but each W and L each come with their own price, so I figured it makes sense. No?

Otherwise, can you hint me at the right direction, please?
 
I have already written the price function. Since WL =4500 , W= 4500/L. so the price
function is

f(L) = 16L+ 20\left(\frac{4500}{L}\right)

and you have to minimize this price function...
 
Oh, did you edit your post later? I only read the 1st two lines. Sorry. And thanks.

I'll go back trying to solve it now :)
 
I'm getting imaginary answers when I set the derivative equal to 0...that can't be it right?
 

Attachments

  • derivative.jpg
    derivative.jpg
    25.5 KB · Views: 601
Don't bother with a common denominator.
a-\frac{b}{x^2}=0 \Rightarrow a = \frac{b}{x^2} \Rightarrow ax^2 = b
with the condition that x \neq 0.

Also, from lower on in your work, \frac{16L^2-90000}{L^2} = 0 is not 16L2-90000=L2
 
femme, you are getting

16L^2 = 90000

its simple equation. check your calculations again. no imaginary numbers here.
 
Excellent :) 75, and -75. Making perfect sense now.

And sorry for my algebraic mishap. I'm still knocking myself on the basics. You guys are great :)
 
  • #10
ok... on physical grounds we reject -75 ...
 
  • #11
Also, regarding the algebra, don't always head straight for the quadratic formula. Sometimes there are far easier methods of solution.

It's also good to verify that your answer is a minimum by taking the second derivative. (It would be bad if, in a case of multiple solutions, we picked one that maximized cost! :bugeye:)
 
  • #12
@ Isaac - Yes, I realize -75 doesn' make sense based on physical grounds. Thank you :)

@ jhae - I checked it's a min by setting a number lower than 75 in the derivative and seeing a negative figure, then a number over 75, and seeing a positive figure. Definitely a min. Thanks :)

jhae2.718 said:
Also, regarding the algebra, don't always head straight for the quadratic formula. Sometimes there are far easier methods of solution.
Actually using a calculator to solve a quadradic formula, so it's pretty easy (I just plug in a, b, and c)
 
  • #13
Femme_physics said:
Actually using a calculator to solve a quadradic formula...

:eek:
 
  • #14
LOL, why the shocked face?
 
  • #15
I'm generally of the opinion that calculator equation solvers are a black box to which most people plug numbers in and then "The Answer" comes out. (I'm not saying you're one of these, but just relating my general experience.) I think that you should only be allowed to use solvers that you have programmed yourself. (Well, for trivial cases, at least.)

Of course, I'm a hypocrite who uses MATLAB for everything, so...
 
  • #16
Heh, well, I guess it's good to practice the mind, I'm also in engineering/physics so the general mood is "don't waste too much time on math because there's so much to learn, just plug it in if you can".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K