1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Roots of equation.

  1. Oct 10, 2009 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Show that there is only one stationary point of the curve [tex]y=e^{x/2} - ln (x)[/tex], where x>0 and determine the nature of the stationary point.


    My approach:

    dy/dx = [tex] 0.5e^{x/2} - 1/x [/tex]

    When dy/dx=0 For stationary point.

    Thus, through algebraic manipulation,

    [tex] ln(2)-0.5x=ln(x) [/tex]

    Since,[tex] ln(2)-0.5x [/tex] is a deacreasing function ,

    and [tex] ln(x) [/tex] is a increasing function with an horizontal asymptote of x=0.

    Therefore , there is only an intersection at coordinate (1.13429 , 0.126007) by newton-raphson method.

    Correct me if I am wrong or please show me a prove that is more elegant.:frown:
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 10, 2009 #2
    You are trying to find a zero slope (where the derivative vanishes) not a root. I haven't worked this out yet myself, but your methodology looks correct to me.

    Thanks
    Matt
     
  4. Oct 10, 2009 #3
    A million thanks (=
    Have a great day!
     
  5. Oct 10, 2009 #4
    Remember you can always graph your original function before you perform any differentiation to see where there might be a slope of zero. This can be very helpful if you have a difficult function to diferentiate.

    Thanks
    Matt
     
  6. Oct 10, 2009 #5
    Noted (=
     
  7. Oct 11, 2009 #6

    Mentallic

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Oh wow... this looks quite elegant, if it's legitimate :smile:
    I am completely lost on what you've done, and after seeing that for this equation, solving for x when dy/dx=0 cannot be done as simply as through my usual routine, I'm curious to what you've done.
    If you don't mind, could you please elaborate on what the "through algebraic manipulation" actually involved and thus how you resulted in the next line?

     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Roots of equation.
  1. Roots of Equation (Replies: 2)

  2. Roots of equation (Replies: 2)

  3. Roots of an equation (Replies: 2)

  4. Root of equation (Replies: 1)

  5. Roots of equation (Replies: 22)

Loading...