Setting Derivative = 0 and solving

  • Thread starter Thread starter deedsy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
AI Thread Summary
Setting the derivative equal to zero to solve for a variable is valid, even when the derivative is a fraction with the variable in both the numerator and denominator. It is permissible to multiply both sides by the denominator, provided it does not equal zero, effectively simplifying the equation. Alternatively, dividing by x/x can also be used, assuming x is not zero. Both methods lead to the same solution, demonstrating the flexibility in approach to solving such problems. Understanding these concepts is crucial for tackling more complex equations in calculus.
deedsy
Messages
81
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I'm currently working on a problem that requires me to set the derivative = 0 and solve for a variable (call it x). The derivative comes out to be a fraction, with x terms in both the numerator and denominator. Is it legal to just multiply 0 by the denominator (thereby canceling it) even if it has the term of interest as part of it?

Simple Ex: say the derivative came out to be x-3 / 2x. And I want to solve for x.
When I set that derivative equal to zero, can i just multiply 0 by 2x, leaving x-3=0? So x=3

Homework Equations



none

The Attempt at a Solution


...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That should be ok. You could also divide the left side by x / x, assuming that x is not equal to zero, resulting in:

( 1 - (3/x) ) / 2 = 0
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
thank you
 
rcgldr said:
That should be ok. You could also divide the left side by x / x, assuming that x is not equal to zero, resulting in:

( 1 - (3/x) ) / 2 = 0

i thought they're supposed to show the work?
 
MGCLO said:
i thought they're supposed to show the work?

It is a requirement for HW problems, but my question was geared towards a concept. The equation I'm deriving for the HW would probably take up an entire line on here. The example I put on was just that, an example, it wasn't even close to my actual problem (although I wish it was haha)
 
MGCLO said:
i thought they're supposed to show the work?
Multiplying both sides by 2x is just as valid as dividing the left side by x/x. I only showed that as an alternative in case there's a situation where that would be a better option for a different equation.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top