Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Implicit diff (2 var), error or what?

  1. Feb 28, 2005 #1
    i am working on a homework assignment. it's easy, or, so i think....

    [tex] 3x^2 - xy^3 + sin(x^3 - y) = 4 [/tex]

    Find [tex] \frac{dy}{dx} [/tex]

    not a problem. i ended up with

    [tex] \frac{dy}{dx} = \frac {6x - y^3 + 3x^2 cos(x^3 - y)}{3xy^2 + cos(x^3 - y)} [/tex]

    using implicit differention.

    now, "What is the slope of the curve defined by the equation at the point [tex] (0, \pi) [/tex]?"

    at first, i plugged it into the derivative, ended up with [tex] \pi^3 [/tex], but, upon inspection, i noticed that the point [tex] (0, \pi) [/tex] does not exist in the original equation. am I to find the slope of the curve of the derivative, or is this a typo, or am i looking at this problem incorrectly? thanks.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 28, 2005 #2
    wouldn't you just use point slope form: [itex] y-y_{1} = m(x-x_{1}) [/itex]? Just plug in the values into the derivative and work off from the above form?
  4. Feb 28, 2005 #3
    um, point slope form looks messy, but that's besides the point. perhaps this wasn't clear enough. the point [tex] (0, \pi) [/tex] doesn't exist in the original equation. not on the graph. [tex] sin(-\pi) [/tex] does not equal 4. that's the crux of my problem.

    IF the point was on the original graph, no problem, plug the values into the derivative and what I get is [tex] \pi^3 [/tex].
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2005
  5. Feb 28, 2005 #4
    Take the limit as x-> 0 and y -> Pi or look at the graph?
  6. Feb 28, 2005 #5
    I think it is a typo. There are in infinite many tangent lines to a point... so the point would have to be on the curve in order for the derivative you found to be relavent.
  7. Feb 28, 2005 #6
    looking at the graph is what caused me to realize the point isn't on there. it's not even close. now, as x approches 0 from the left, y approaches 2pi. the slope would also be increasing without bound. but that's for 2pi, which has no bearing on my problem.

    it's becoming obvious to me that this must be a typo, though, it's so obviously incorrect i just dont' know how it got by
  8. Feb 28, 2005 #7
    thank you, jameson
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook