Multi-Variable Calculus: Partial Derivatives Using Level Curves

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding partial derivatives using level curves in multi-variable calculus. The participant is struggling to set up the problem and seeks clarity on the qualitative and analytical explanations of derivatives. Key observations include the relationship between the signs of partial derivatives and the behavior of the function f at specific points, as well as how the spacing of level curves indicates the nature of second derivatives. There is an emphasis on using the limit definition of derivatives to confirm suspicions about the function's behavior. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of interpreting partial derivatives through level curves.
Dembadon
Gold Member
Messages
658
Reaction score
89

Homework Statement



This is a bonus problem on our homework, and I'm having trouble figuring out how to setup what I need.

calc3bonus.jpg


Homework Equations



Here are my best guesses:
f_x=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}
f_y=\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}
f_{xx}=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\right)
f_{xy}=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\right)
f_{yy}=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\right)
f_x=\frac{f(x_0+h,y_0)-f(x,y)}{h}
f_y=\frac{f(x_0,y_0+h)-f(x,y)}{h}

The Attempt at a Solution



My professor said that a "sufficiently precise qualitative explanation" (whatever the hell that means) will be good enough. If it's possible, I would rather provide an analytical explanation. Maybe with the limit definition of the derivative? I'm having trouble figuring out what I need to use, and I have a feeling it's embarrassingly simple. :frown:

Initial observations:

(a) If f is increasing at P then \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} is positive. If f is decreasing, then \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} is negative, right?

(b) Same line of reasoning from (a), but holding x constant.

(c) For f_{xx} the contours appear to be closer together for x<x_0 than for x>x_0. This indicates that f_{xx} is negative, right?

(d) For f_{xy} , I think this means that I'm supposed to observe how f_x changes when f_y changes, right?

(e) For f_{yy} the contours appear to be closer together for y>y_0 than for y<y_0. This indicates that f_{yy} is positive, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Intuitively, fx is something like "the (instantaneous) change in f in the x-direction only" - so what do you expect?

You can confirm this suspicion analytically if you look at the definition of fx[/b]. Just take h > 0 and check the signs of the denominator and the numerator (you'll have to assume that the level curves are a reasonable representation, e.g. that f doesn't rise to 12 in between the level curves for 6 and 4).
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K