Inflection Point of the Threshold Equation

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MacLaddy1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Point Threshold
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying inflection points in a differential equation (DE) related to a threshold equation. Participants explore methods of differentiation and substitution to find these points, focusing on the second derivative and its implications for the solution.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines a method for finding inflection points by differentiating the DE and setting the second derivative to zero, but encounters discrepancies with the expected solution.
  • Another participant points out a potential error in the differentiation process and provides a corrected form of the second derivative.
  • There is a request for clarification on the cancellation of terms during differentiation, specifically in Leibniz notation.
  • Multiple participants reiterate the importance of ordinary differentiation with respect to time (t) in the context of the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for proper differentiation techniques, but there is disagreement regarding the correctness of the initial differentiation and the resulting implications for finding inflection points.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the nature of the DE and the definitions of terms may be implicit. The discussion does not resolve the discrepancies in the differentiation process or the expected results.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in differential equations, mathematical modeling, and techniques for finding inflection points may find this discussion relevant.

MacLaddy1
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

This is probably a simple question, but for some reason no matter how much I fight these figures I can't seem to make it work out correctly.

For many DE's the easiest way to pinpoint inflection points is not from the solution but from the DE itself. Find y'' by differentiating y', remembering to use the chain rule wherever y occurs. Then substitute for y' from the DE and set y''=0. Solve for y to find the inflection points (sometimes in terms of t).

$$y' = -r(1-\frac{y}{T})y$$
$$y' = -ry + \frac{ry^2}{T}$$
$$y'' = -ryy' + \frac{2ryy'}{T}$$
$$0 = -ryy' + \frac{2ryy'}{T}$$
$$ryy' = \frac{r}{T}2yy'$$
$$Tyy' = 2yy'$$
$$2 = T$$

So when T=2 the second derivative indeed equals zero. However, my book is telling me the solution is when $$y=\frac{T}{2}$$

I have substituted the first derivative back into the second, and it's a long drawn out process that never reveals the correct solution for me, and I didn't want to type it out if the solution is more obvious.

Let me know what you guys/gals think.

Thanks,
Mac
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct here:

$$y'=-ry+\frac{r}{T}y^2$$

You made an error in differentiating, you want instead:

$$y''=-ry'+\frac{2r}{T}yy'=ry'\left(\frac{2}{T}y-1 \right)$$

Can you finish?
 
MarkFL said:
You are correct here:

$$y'=-ry+\frac{r}{T}y^2$$

You made an error in differentiating, you want instead:

$$y''=-ry'+\frac{2r}{T}yy'=ry'\left(\frac{2}{T}y-1 \right)$$

Can you finish?

Yes, I believe I can. However, before I try would you mind showing me why that first y is canceled and the second isn't? If you could do it in Leibniz notation I would be even more appreciative. I get mixed up when dealing with Newton's notation.

Thanks,
Mac

** Just tried anyway. That made things a whole lot simpler. Thanks
 
It boils down to:

$$\frac{d}{dt}(y)=\frac{dy}{dt}=y'$$

and

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(y^2 \right)=2y\frac{dy}{dt}=2yy'$$
 
MarkFL said:
It boils down to:

$$\frac{d}{dt}(y)=\frac{dy}{dt}=y'$$

and

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(y^2 \right)=2y\frac{dy}{dt}=2yy'$$

So it still is wrt "t." Could you use the implicit formula to figure this out.
$$-\frac{F_t}{F_y}?$$ I suppose not.
 
I think the best way is to use ordinary differentiation with respect to $t$.
 
MarkFL said:
I think the best way is to use ordinary differentiation with respect to $t$.

Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K