Is f''(x)=0 always a point of inflexion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter prasannapakkiam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that f''(x) = 0 does not always indicate a point of inflection. A point of inflection occurs only if the curvature changes, which can be determined by examining the signs of the second derivative on either side of the point. If f''(a) = 0, it is essential to check f''(a - δ) and f''(a + δ) to see if there is a sign change. The example of x^4 illustrates that at x = 0, the second derivative remains positive, confirming it is not a point of inflection. Ultimately, the sign change of the second derivative is crucial for identifying points of inflection.
prasannapakkiam
Okay, I was programming this game, when I discovered something probably obvious. I realized that I wrongly assumed that when f"(x)=0, it is a point of inflexion. I found that when doing the test for x^4, (at 0, it is the minima); the test came with 0. So is there any way of finding the nature of the extrema in situations such as this?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
This is a common mistake, particularly with A-Level math students. The second derivative gives you information about the rate of change of the derivative, or the curvature of the curve. Now, if the second derivative at some point is positive this means that the curvature at this point is concave up, like the shape of y = x2. Equally, if the second derivative is negative at some point, this means that the curvature is concave down, like the shape of y = - x2.

Now, a point of inflection means that the curvature of the curve has change, e.g. from concave up before the point, to concave down after the point. Now, if we have some value of x, say x = a such that f''(a)=0; then it is quite possible that this is a point of inflection. However, to be certain of this we need to look at the curvature either side of the point. I.e. we need to take f''(a - \delta) and f''(a + \delta) where \delta is a small positive number. If the sign of the second derivative changes from before x=a to after x=a, then we have a point of inflection.

I hope that made sense.
 
But this is just the same if I drew up a table of values and found the nature of the extremas. Is there a proper definitive test for this?
 
Well, that's the way it's done in my Calc class. You don't really need a table of values, just a numberline:
Code:
<---|--->
    x
where x is where the second derivative is 0. Just pick a random value greater than x and see if the second derivative ends up positive or negative, and do the same for a smaller number. If there's a sign change, then there's a point of inflection.
 
The sign of the function f''(x) in the neighborhood of the point is what determines weather it's a point of inflexion or not. For example, in the function x^2, x^2 stays positive on every value left and right of 0, so 0 is not a point of inflexion of the function x^4. For a point of inflexion to occur, the derivative has to change sign, by definition.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top