MHB Maxima and Minima (vector calculus)

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the function f(x, y) = (x^2 + y^2)e^{-(x^2 + y^2)}, with a focus on identifying a local maximum on the unit circle defined by x^2 + y^2 = 1. The author questions the visual interpretation of the graph that suggests a local maximum exists at this point. Additionally, there is interest in how to plot this function using software like R, GNU Octave, or graphing calculators, emphasizing the simplicity of plotting it due to the form of the function. The conversation also touches on the cylindrical coordinates representation and the implications of rotating the graph around the y-axis. Understanding these aspects is crucial for analyzing the behavior of the function in vector calculus.
WMDhamnekar
MHB
Messages
378
Reaction score
30
Hi, Hi,

Author said If we look at the graph of $ f (x, y)= (x^2 +y^2)*e^{-(x^2+y^2)},$ as shown in the following Figure it looks like we might have a local maximum for (x, y) on the unit circle $ x^2 + y^2 = 1.$

1649834173266.png
But when I read this graph, I couldn't guess that the stated function have a local maximum on the unit circle $ x^2 + y^2=1$

1)I want to know what did author grasp in the above figure which compelled him to make the aforesaid statement?

2) How to plot this function in 'R' or in 'GNU OCTAVE' or in any graphing calculator ? Is it easy to plot $f(x,y)= (x^2+y^2)*e^{-(x^2+y^2)} ?$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you notice that the only way x and y appear in that function is as "$x^2+y^2$"? In cylindrical coordinates we can write it as $f(r,\theta)= r^2e^{-r^2}$. If we write it as $y= x^2e^{x^2}$ its graph looks like this: <iframe src="https://www.desmos.com/calculator/oj7v5yfd0f?embed" width="500" height="500" style="border: 1px solid #ccc" frameborder=0></iframe>

Do you see what happens at x= 1 and x= -1? Imagine rotating that around the y-axis.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K