Find Nature of Stationary Point of y=e^(x/2)-ln(x)

  • Thread starter Thread starter icystrike
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Roots
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the stationary points of the function y=e^(x/2) - ln(x) for x>0. Participants are exploring the conditions under which the derivative of the function equals zero, indicating stationary points, and are questioning the nature of these points.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to find the stationary point by setting the derivative to zero and manipulating the resulting equation. Some participants question the clarity of the algebraic steps taken and seek further elaboration on the methodology used.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaged in clarifying the approach to finding stationary points and discussing the validity of the original poster's method. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of graphical analysis to identify points where the slope is zero, although no consensus on the exact nature of the stationary point has been reached.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the need for a deeper understanding of the algebraic manipulation involved in the original poster's approach, as well as the acknowledgment that the function's complexity may complicate straightforward differentiation.

icystrike
Messages
444
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Show that there is only one stationary point of the curve [tex]y=e^{x/2} - ln (x)[/tex], where x>0 and determine the nature of the stationary point.


My approach:

dy/dx = [tex]0.5e^{x/2} - 1/x[/tex]

When dy/dx=0 For stationary point.

Thus, through algebraic manipulation,

[tex]ln(2)-0.5x=ln(x)[/tex]

Since,[tex]ln(2)-0.5x[/tex] is a deacreasing function ,

and [tex]ln(x)[/tex] is a increasing function with an horizontal asymptote of x=0.

Therefore , there is only an intersection at coordinate (1.13429 , 0.126007) by Newton-raphson method.

Correct me if I am wrong or please show me a prove that is more elegant.:frown:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are trying to find a zero slope (where the derivative vanishes) not a root. I haven't worked this out yet myself, but your methodology looks correct to me.

Thanks
Matt
 
CFDFEAGURU said:
You are trying to find a zero slope (where the derivative vanishes) not a root. I haven't worked this out yet myself, but your methodology looks correct to me.

Thanks
Matt

A million thanks (=
Have a great day!
 
Remember you can always graph your original function before you perform any differentiation to see where there might be a slope of zero. This can be very helpful if you have a difficult function to diferentiate.

Thanks
Matt
 
CFDFEAGURU said:
Remember you can always graph your original function before you perform any differentiation to see where there might be a slope of zero. This can be very helpful if you have a difficult function to diferentiate.

Thanks
Matt

Noted (=
 
Oh wow... this looks quite elegant, if it's legitimate :smile:
I am completely lost on what you've done, and after seeing that for this equation, solving for x when dy/dx=0 cannot be done as simply as through my usual routine, I'm curious to what you've done.
If you don't mind, could you please elaborate on what the "through algebraic manipulation" actually involved and thus how you resulted in the next line?

dy/dx = [tex]0.5e^{x/2} - 1/x[/tex]


When dy/dx=0 For stationary point.

Thus, through algebraic manipulation,

[tex]ln(2)-0.5x=ln(x)[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
49
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K