1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Implicit differentiation

  1. Mar 4, 2004 #1
    My TA did not get the chance to go over this problem. I know that I'm supposed to differentiate both sides of the equation. But I have not the slightest idea what to do after that. I was told that I am supposed to get out 4 points that lie on the ellipse and the sides of the box are tangent to the ellipse. Also, the horizontal lines have a slope of 0 but as for the vertical lines, i dont know. So how should I solve this problem? after differentiating, am i supposed to solve for y' or y? Any hints or tips? Thanks alot!

    [​IMG]
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 4, 2004 #2

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is the equation of a vertical line? What does its derivative look like?
     
  4. Mar 4, 2004 #3
    is the equation of a vert. line x= something? is the derivative undef?
     
  5. Mar 4, 2004 #4
    Yes. dy/dx = undefined corresponds to a vertical line. Remember that slope is rise over run. A vertical line has infinite rise and zero run, so m = (infinity)/0 = undefined.

    cookiemonster
     
  6. Mar 5, 2004 #5

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The equation is right. The assertion is not.

    If we have the equation x = a (for some constant a), then if we differentiate we get x' = 0.


    (This problem is much easier if your differentiations are with respect to some unnamed third variable, instead of differentiating with respect to x)


    edit: fixed my quoting problems.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2004
  7. Mar 7, 2004 #6
    so let me get this straight. in order to do this problem, you differentiate both sides of the equation with respect to x and y is a functin of x. then you solve for y'=0 for the vert tangent lines of the ellipse and y'= something else for the horizontal tangent lines? can you help guide me through this please? this thing is due tomorrow!!!
     
  8. Mar 7, 2004 #7

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What -I- would do (essentially) is differentiate with respect to some unnamed third variable.

    Then, since horizontal lines are y = a (for some a), I'm looking for y' = 0 to get the horizontal ones. Since vertical lines are x = b (for some b), I'm looking for x' = 0 to get vertical ones.

    Cookiemonster was suggesting you look for y' = undefined.


    (note, though, if x' and y' are both 0, we have a singularity and can't tell what the corresponding tangent line, if any, would be)
     
  9. Mar 7, 2004 #8

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think Hurkyl's response could be a little misleading. The equation x= 1 says that x is a constant and so, thinking of x as a function of some other variable, the derivative of x with respect to that other variable is 0. In this case, we are looking for a point on the graph at which the figure has a vertical tangent. A vertical line has undefined slope and so the derivative of y with respect to x must be undefined.

    In this particular case, the equation is x2- xy+ y2= 3.

    "Implicit differentiation" gives 2x- y+ xy'+ 2yy'= 0 or
    y'(x+2y)= y- 2x. The derivative will be 0 when y- 2x= 0 or y= 2x.
    Since x and y satisfy x2- xy+ y2= 3, replacing x with y/2, this becomes y2/4- 2y2/4+ y2= 32/4= 3 and so y= 2 or -2. When y= 2, x2- xy+ y2= x2- 2x+ 4= 3 or x2-2y+ 1= (x-1)2= 0 so x= 1. When y= -2, x2- xy+ y2= x2+ 2x+ 4= 3 or x2+ 2x+ 1= (x+1)2= 0 so x= -1. The horizontal tangents are at (1, 2) and (-1, -2), and so the top and bottom of the rectangle are y= 2 and y= -2 respectively.

    y' is undefined when x+2y= 0. Because of the symmetry, it should be clear that the two sides of the rectangle are at x= 2 and x= -2.
     
  10. Mar 7, 2004 #9
    can you just explain and justify this statement. I understand the entire problem except this one line kind of confuses just a wee bit.. Thanks to all of you guys!
     
  11. Mar 8, 2004 #10

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    We got, by implicit differentiation: y'(x+2y)= y- 2x.
    Then y'= (y-2x)/(x+2y) which does not exist if the denominator
    x+2y= 0. My remark about "symmetry" was based on the fact that we had just shown that when y'= 0, y- 2x= 0 gives y= 2 and -2 as upper and lower bounds.

    The original equation was x2- xy+ y2= 3 which is "symmetric" in x and y. Clearly, using x+ 2y= 0 instead of y- 2x= 0 will give exactly the same results but with -x in place of y.

    If that is not clear to you, go ahead an substitute 2y in place of x in the equation x2- xy+ y2= 4y2- 2y2+ y2= 3y2= 3 gives y= +/- 1 just as before we had x= +/- 1. Putting y= +1 into x+2y= 0 gives x= -2, putting y= -1 into x+ 2y= 0 gives x= 2. The bounding rectangle is the square bounded by x= 2, x= -2, y= 2, and y= -2.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Implicit differentiation
Loading...