Differentiation of ellipse equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on differentiating the ellipse equation as presented in Morris Kline's 'Calculus', specifically in the form b²X² + a²y² = a²b². The user struggles with implicit differentiation and the product rule, ultimately questioning the derivation of the derivative -b²x/a²y. They also compare this to another calculus book that uses the standard form x²/a² + y²/b² = 1 and employs implicit differentiation on the numerators. The conclusion emphasizes that both methods yield the same derivative, highlighting the equivalence of the two forms of the ellipse equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of implicit differentiation
  • Familiarity with the product rule and quotient rule in calculus
  • Knowledge of the standard form of the ellipse equation
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study implicit differentiation techniques in detail
  • Learn how to apply the product and quotient rules effectively
  • Explore the relationship between different forms of the ellipse equation
  • Practice deriving equations using both implicit and explicit differentiation methods
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematics educators, and anyone interested in understanding the differentiation of conic sections, particularly ellipses.

flashgordon2!
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
In Morris Kline's 'Calculus', he puts the ellipse equation in this form, b^2X^2+a^2y^2=a^2b^2, and says this is the best way to differentiate it; i did it thinking implicit differentiation and the product rule, but I'd get four terms on one side and two terms on the other side. He doesn't show how he did the implicit differentiation, but his result is -b^2x/a^2y, which seems pretty hard to get to from the above first form of the elipse equation.

I managed to find an old calc book that arrives at the derivative as shown above, but by means of the usual form of the ellipse equation x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1; i would think to differentiate from here, you'd use the quotient rule(or, maybe he moves the denominators up by means of negative exponents; i admit to not having tried that yet, but still . . .), but this other calc book just implicitly differentiates the numerators and leaves the denominators alone, and then rearanges to get the derivative indicated by Morris Kline in the first paragraph above.

So, I have two questions! One, how to get the derivative of the ellipse equation from the from Morris Kline first indicates above, and two, why this other calc book gets the correct answer by doing implicit differentiation on the numerators alone?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The numbers a and b are constants; that answers your second question.
As for the first question, use implicit differentiation. The Morris equation is just the other equation multiplied by (a^2)(b^2).
 
nobody noticed some interesting phenomenon in this thread?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K