Quartic with two stationary points of inflection

  • Thread starter Thread starter hmvince
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Points
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical challenge of finding a quartic function with two stationary points of inflection at (1, 23) and (3, 15) and a y-intercept of 24. The second derivative is expressed as f''(x) = k(x-1)(x-3), leading to the first derivative f'(x) after integration. The participants clarify that a stationary point of inflection is where the second derivative is zero and the first derivative is also zero, confirming that a quartic can indeed have two such points. The confusion arises in solving for constants in the quartic's coefficients, particularly the relationship between k, a, b, and c.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of integral calculus, specifically integration of polynomials.
  • Familiarity with the concepts of stationary points and inflection points in calculus.
  • Knowledge of quartic functions and their general form: f(x) = ax^4 + bx^3 + cx^2 + dx + e.
  • Ability to differentiate functions and solve for coefficients in polynomial equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of quartic functions and their derivatives, focusing on stationary points and inflection points.
  • Learn how to integrate polynomial functions and apply initial conditions to determine constants.
  • Explore the discriminant of quadratic equations to understand the conditions for real roots.
  • Practice solving for coefficients in polynomial equations using simultaneous equations derived from derivatives.
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus and polynomial functions, as well as anyone interested in the properties of quartic equations and their derivatives.

hmvince
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone!
Recently got a question in maths which asks:
"Use integral calculus to find the equation of the quartic that has stationary points of inflection at (1, 23) and (3, 15) and a y-intercept of 24"
This means that the second derivative has the form (as inflection points are x-intercepts in the second derivative):
f''(x) = k(x-1)(x-3)
I integrate this and get an answer for f'(x), all fine and dandy. But then I say, since there are two stationary points, f'(1) = 0, and f'(3) = 0, and it all breaks down!

Is it even possible to have a quartic with TWO stationary points of inflection, or am I just screwing something up (haha)?

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hmvince said:
Hey everyone!
Recently got a question in maths which asks:
"Use integral calculus to find the equation of the quartic that has stationary points of inflection at (1, 23) and (3, 15) and a y-intercept of 24"
This means that the second derivative has the form (as inflection points are x-intercepts in the second derivative):
f''(x) = k(x-1)(x-3)
I integrate this and get an answer for f'(x), all fine and dandy. But then I say, since there are two stationary points, f'(1) = 0, and f'(3) = 0, and it all breaks down!

Is it even possible to have a quartic with TWO stationary points of inflection, or am I just screwing something up (haha)?

Cheers.

This should be in the homework section.

And sorry, but what is a stationary point of inflection? There are inflection points (f '' = 0), there are stationary points (f ' = 0), but a stationary point of inflection?

Anyway, I'll assume you mean just an inflection point. Of course quartics can have two stationary points, because clearly if you take the second derivative of a general quartic f(x)=ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+dx+e you'll end up with a quadratic, which can have anywhere from 0 to 2 roots based on its discriminant.
 
Thankyou, and sorry, I should have explained. a stationary point of inflection is a point of inflection at which the rate of change is zero. Like this: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/InflectionPoint_700.gif

I've been sitting here trying to sketch a quartic with two of these points (of course a quartic with two points of inflection is possible :smile:) and the only thing I can come up with is one which looks like a quadratic, but really fat. Like this: http://www.math.brown.edu/UTRA/polynomials/quartic.gif
where the central max/min forms a line with the other two, but I still cannot get the math to work.
f'(x) = \int k(x-1)(x-3) = k(\frac{x^{3}}{3} - 2x^{3} + 3x) + c
Then, f'(3) = 0 which results in:
k(9-54+9) + c = 0
∴ c = 54k
and f'(1) = 0
results in c = (4/3)k

How can c = both things, i don't understand! If k = 0, then I have nothing to integrate to get f(x)

Have I done something, or they have the question wrong?
 
Last edited:
But then I say, since there are two stationary points, f'(1) = 0, and f'(3) = 0, and it all breaks down!

Show your working. Why would it break down?

Edit: argh cross post.

Why aren't you starting with a "generic" quartic as Mentallic post above, and differentiate twice, and solve for a and b?
 
Last edited:
Mentallic said:
There are inflection points (f '' = 0)

Err, no. An inflection point means that the second derivative changes sign. It's not enough that the second derivative vanish there.
 
Either way I do it, if I work back from the general form, I have unknowns on both sides, the k in front of one lot, and the a, b, and c in front of the second derivative of the general form.
Please help me

Solving for A, b, and c I get:
k = 12a
k = -1.5b
k = (2/3)c
 
hmvince said:
Either way I do it, if I work back from the general form, I have unknowns on both sides, the k in front of one lot, and the a, b, and c in front of the second derivative of the general form.
Please help me

Solving for A, b, and c I get:
k = 12a
k = -1.5b
k = (2/3)c

What's k?
You really need to show your working. We aren't mind readers.
 
f''(x) = k(x-1)(x-3) = kx^{2} - 4kx + 3k
and
f''(x) = 12ax^{2} + 6bx + 2c (differentiating from general formula)

∴12a = k
∴6b = 4k
∴2c = 3k
 
Okay so substitute back into ##f(x) = ax^4 + bx^3 + cx^2+dx+e## and go from there.
 
  • #10
pwsnafu said:
Err, no. An inflection point means that the second derivative changes sign. It's not enough that the second derivative vanish there.

Ahh so it is. It's such a warm feeling knowing that I've had that wrong all these years.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K