Derivation of a Higher Order Derivative Test

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the generalization and derivation of higher-order derivative tests in calculus, particularly in relation to determining local minima and maxima of functions. Participants explore how these tests can be applied beyond the second-order derivative test, using specific examples like the function f(x) = x^4.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the second-order derivative test is inconclusive when f''(c) = 0, leading to the need for a higher-order derivative test.
  • One participant suggests that for the function f(x) = x^4, the minimum at 0 can be established without higher derivatives, noting the behavior of the first derivative around that point.
  • Another participant emphasizes the desire for a derivation of the higher derivative test rather than alternative methods for finding minima.
  • A participant mentions that if the first non-zero derivative at a point x0 is the n-th derivative, the function behaves locally like a polynomial, indicating that x0 is a local minimum if n is even and the n-th derivative is positive.
  • There is a reference to a derivation seen on another forum, with a participant questioning its correctness.
  • One participant acknowledges a correction needed in their earlier post regarding the inclusion of f(x0) in the explanation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of higher-order derivative tests, with some arguing that simpler methods suffice for certain functions, while others maintain a focus on deriving the higher-order tests. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to generalizing these tests.

Contextual Notes

Assumptions about the analyticity of functions are mentioned, as well as the conditions under which the higher-order derivative test applies, but these aspects remain open to further exploration and clarification.

bagasme
Messages
79
Reaction score
9
TL;DR
How can we generalize first and second-order derivative tests to higher derivatives?
Hello,

In second-order derivative test, the test is inconclusive when ##f''(c)=0##, so we had to generalize to higher-order derivative test.

I was wondering how such tests can be generalized and derived?

For example, how can I prove that ##f(x)=x^4## have minimum at 0?

Bagas
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bagasme said:
Summary:: How can we generalize first and second-order derivative tests to higher derivatives?

Hello,

In second-order derivative test, the test is inconclusive when ##f''(c)=0##, so we had to generalize to higher-order derivative test.

I was wondering how such tests can be generalized and derived?

For example, how can I prove that ##f(x)=x^4## have minimum at 0?
For this example, there's no need for a test involving higher derivatives. It's easy to see that this function has its minimum at 0 because, if x > 0, then f'(x) > 0, and if x < 0, then f'(x) < 0. In other words, f is decreasing on ##(-\infty, 0)## and is increasing on ##(0, \infty)##. It's as simple as that.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara and FactChecker
Mark44 said:
For this example, there's no need for a test involving higher derivatives. It's easy to see that this function has its minimum at 0 because, if x > 0, then f'(x) > 0, and if x < 0, then f'(x) < 0. In other words, f is decreasing on ##(-\infty, 0)## and is increasing on ##(0, \infty)##. It's as simple as that.
Nope, I just want higher derivative test derivation.
 
Assume that the function is analytic. If the first non-zero derivative at the point ##x_0## is the n'th derivative, then the function behaves locally like ##f(x_0)+(f^{(n)}(x_0)/n!) (x-x_0)^n##. So ##x_0## is a local minimum if ##n## is even and ##f^{(n)}(x_0) \gt 0##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bagasme and pbuk
I saw the derivation on SE forum, is the explanation right?
 
bagasme said:
I saw the derivation on SE forum, is the explanation right?
Yes. In fact, it points out a correction that I must make by adding ##f(x_0)## to my post. I will edit and fix my post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K