Finding Concavity: Solve with x's and y's | Rutgers

  • Thread starter Thread starter ACLerok
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To determine concavity for the given problem, the second derivative, y'', must be calculated. First, implicitly differentiate the equation to find the first derivative, y', and then differentiate again to obtain y''. After finding y'', substitute the point (1,2) into the expression. It is advised to avoid using the complicated expression for y(x) to simplify the process. This method effectively assesses the concavity of the curve.
ACLerok
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~cjjacob/images/calc.gif

I am given this problem to do but I'm not absolutely sure how to get through it. The way I would do is to find y' in terms of x's and y's and then plugin the point (1,2) and then take the derivative again and see if y'' is positve (curve up) or negative (curve down). Is this the best way to go about this problem or is it completely wrong or what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. Concavity is determined by the second derivative.

So implicitly differentiate twice and get an expression for d^2y/dx^2 in terms of x and y. Then plug in (1,2).

And whatever you do, ignore that ugly-looking expression for y(x)! That will make your life very, very, very miserable.

cookiemonster
 
Last edited:
cookiemonster said:
Yes. Concavity is determined by the second derivative.

So implicitly differentiate twice and get an expression for d^2y/dx^2 in terms of x and y. Then plug in (1,2).

And whatever you do, ignore that ugly-looking expression for y(x)! That will make your life very, very, very miserable.

cookiemonster

I calculated the first derivative and got 15x^(2)y+5x^(3)y'-3y^(2)-6xyy'+3y^(2)y'=0. is this correct and if so, what do i do after this? express in terms of y'?
 
Yes. Now solve for y' and then differentiate again. Then solve for y'' and substitute away any y' you see. Then just plug in values.

cookiemonster
 
Thanks! I got it.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top