Minimizing a directional derivative

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of directional derivatives and gradients in multivariable calculus. The original poster seeks to understand how to find the minimum value of a directional derivative and expresses confusion about the utility of the gradient vector.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between directional derivatives and gradients, questioning how the direction opposite to the gradient affects the derivative's value. There is also discussion about the properties of the gradient, particularly its relationship to level curves and directions where the derivative is zero.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights about the properties of the gradient and its implications for directional derivatives. The original poster has shared their calculations regarding the gradient at a specific point, indicating an ongoing exploration of the topic without a clear consensus on the understanding of gradients.

Contextual Notes

The original poster references a specific function and point for analysis, indicating constraints related to their homework assignment. There is also mention of difficulties with formatting mathematical expressions, which may affect the clarity of their contributions.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
I know that you determine maximum value of a directional derivative at a point by finding...

<br /> |\nabla f(a_0 ,b_0 )|<br />

But how do you find the minimum value?

I'm also kinda wondering exactly what a gradient is. It seems like if you have the gradient equation and a point... all you are getting is a single vector and a single rate of change... doesn't seem all that useful.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If going in the direction \theta makes the derivative a maximum, what happens if you go in the exact opposite direction?
 
... its the opposite and parallel vector isn't it (as in <1,1> is to <-1,-1>) hahaha... oh man... i wonder why my professor made a big fuss about it on our homework assignment then...
 
By the way- it also follows that the directional derivative is 0 in the direction perpendicular to the gradient. That's useful property: the gradient is always perpendicular to level curves.
 
Wow that's helpful since I now have to figure out 2 directions where the rate of change is 0 at a certain point. Problem is, I don't remember how to figure out what vector that would be... I have...

f(p,q) = qe^{ - p} + pe^{ - q}

at (0,0)

I got….

<br /> \nabla f(p,q) = \frac{{\partial f}}{{\partial p}}i + \frac{{\partial f}}{{\partial q}}j \\
\frac{{\partial f}}{{\partial p}} = e^{ - q} - e^{ - p} q \\
\frac{{\partial f}}{{\partial q}} = e^{ - p} - e^{ - q} p \\
\nabla f(p,q) = (e^{ - q} - e^{ - p} q)i + (e^{ - p} - e^{ - q} p)j \\
\nabla f(0,0) = &lt; 1,1 &gt; \\
|\nabla f(0,0)| = \sqrt 2 \\ <br />

I assume this all means that at (0,0), the maximum slope is a vector of <1,1> with a rate of increase of \sqrt 2

YES, STUPID LATEX, TAKE THAT! How do you get it to automatically go to a new line without having to tex and /tex after every single line?

So... is my assumption correct or am i missing the point of gradients all together?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K