Vertical Tangents vs Vertical Cusps

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qube
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vertical
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of vertical tangents and vertical cusps in relation to the derivative of a function given by f'(x) = (2x)/(3(x^2-4)^(2/3)). Participants explore the definitions and characteristics of vertical cusps and tangents, particularly focusing on the behavior of the derivative at points where it becomes undefined.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the conditions under which vertical cusps and tangents occur, questioning the implications of the signs of one-sided limits of the derivative. There is a focus on the behavior of the function at points x = 2 and x = -2, where the derivative approaches infinity.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing insights and clarifications regarding the definitions of vertical cusps and tangents. Some participants express agreement on certain points, while others propose alternative categorizations and examples to illustrate their understanding.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a study guide that may contain inaccuracies regarding the definitions of vertical cusps and tangents. Participants are analyzing these definitions in light of the provided function and its derivative.

Qube
Gold Member
Messages
461
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



I have an equation f'(x) = (2x)/(3(x^2-4)^(2/3))

Homework Equations



Vertical cusps are where the one sided limits of the derivative at a point are infinities of opposite signs.

Vertical tangent lines are where the one sided limits of the derivative at a point are infinities of the same sign.

The Attempt at a Solution



I know that the derivative blows up (goes to infinity) at both x = 2 and x = -2 since that will zero the denominator (and nothing cancels with the denominator in the numerator.)

However, it is not possible for the limit of the derivative at x = 2 or -2 to change signs because the denominator will always be positive; in the denominator there is a constant multiplied by a squared term. Whether x is approaching 2 from the right or left hand side and whether the term becomes a very small positive number close to 0 or a very small negative number close to zero is irrelevant as the term will be squared, making it positive. Basically, the numerator will control the sign of the limit.

Therefore, it is impossible for the graph of f(x) to have vertical cusps at x = 2 or x = -2. It's impossible for the one sided limits at x = 2 or x = -2 to change signs.
Is my reasoning correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Qube said:

Homework Statement



I have an equation f'(x) = (2x)/(3(x^2-4)^(2/3))

Homework Equations



Vertical cusps are where the one sided limits of the derivative at a point are infinities of opposite signs.

Vertical tangent lines are where the one sided limits of the derivative at a point are infinities of the same sign.
They don't have to be the same sign. For example, y = 1/x has a vertical tangent at x = 0, and has one-sided limits of the derivative as you say above. However, y = 1/x2 has vertical tangents at x = 0 with opposite signs.

A function can be continuous everywhere and have a cusp where the derivative is undefined. Some examples are y = |x| and y = ##\sqrt[3]{|x|}##.
Qube said:

The Attempt at a Solution



I know that the derivative blows up (goes to infinity) at both x = 2 and x = -2 since that will zero the denominator (and nothing cancels with the denominator in the numerator.)

However, it is not possible for the limit of the derivative at x = 2 or -2 to change signs because the denominator will always be positive; in the denominator there is a constant multiplied by a squared term. Whether x is approaching 2 from the right or left hand side and whether the term becomes a very small positive number close to 0 or a very small negative number close to zero is irrelevant as the term will be squared, making it positive. Basically, the numerator will control the sign of the limit.

Therefore, it is impossible for the graph of f(x) to have vertical cusps at x = 2 or x = -2. It's impossible for the one sided limits at x = 2 or x = -2 to change signs.
Is my reasoning correct?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
I think I grasp the distinction now. Vertical cusps exist where the function is defined at some point c, and the function is going to opposite infinities.

Vertical tangents are the same as cusps except the function is not defined at the point of the vertical tangent. Also for a vertical tangent the sign can change, or it may not.

So cusp - c for continuity at point c?

----

ETA: I'm also going to conclude that this study guide I paid for is incorrect:

https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/v/1422873_10201017500061416_1467202513_n.jpg?oh=d2e307ff38427e5cdad392fb705b72ba&oe=527DB732
 
Qube said:
Vertical tangents are the same as cusps except the function is not defined at the point of the vertical tangent. Also for a vertical tangent the sign can change, or it may not.
I don't think it's useful to think of vertical tangents and cusps as nearly the same.
Qube said:
So cusp - c for continuity at point c?
This is unclear.

From the image of your study guide:
Vert. tangents -
"It has a cusp if the function changes signs across the first derivative point."
"It is just a vertical tangent if it does not change signs across the first <image is cut off> at that point."

Both bullet points are wrong. In the first, the function cannot possibly change signs from one side of the cusp to the other. The derivative does change signs, though.

In the second, the functions f(x) = 1/x and g(x) = 1/x2 have vertical tangents at x = 0. For the first, f'(x) < 0 everywhere except at x = 0. For the second, g'(x) > 0 for x < 0 and g'(x) < 0 for x > 0.

The second bullet point is an excellent example of how NOT to write clearly. For one thing, the first "it" doesn't refer to the same thing as the second "it."

A better way to categorize the places where a function's derivative is undefined, IMO, is to make a distinction between cusps on the graph and vertical asymptotes. At a cusp, the function is defined, but its derivative is undefined. Necessarily the derivative will have to change sign from one side to the other. A function f has a vertical asymptote at x = c if f is not defined at c but is defined for points near c. Rational functions exhibit this behavior due to the denominator becoming zero.

I used WA to graph something close to what you asked about in post #1 - http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y=x/(x^2+-+4)^(2/3)&a=^_Real. For simplicity I graphed y = x/[x2 - 4]^(2/3). The basic features such as intercepts and vertical and horizontal asymptotes are the same as what you posted.

From this graph you can see that the lines x = -2 and x = 2 are vertical asymptotes. Around x = -2, the function heads off to -∞. Around x = 2, the function heads off to +∞.

I hope you didn't pay a lot for this study guide...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Alright, I think we can agree on the point that at a cusp, the function is defined while the derivative is not. And at a vertical tangent, the function is undefined, and the derivative is also undefined.

I would probably rewrite the guide as something like this then:

1) There exists a cusp at point c if the function is

a) Defined at point c

and

b) The derivative of the function goes to infinities of opposite signs around point c.

2) There exists a vertical asymptote if

a) The function is undefined at point c.

and

b) The derivative of the function around point c goes to infinity (the sign can either change or stay the same; it doesn't matter).

And for an example of a vertical tangent I would probably mention the graph of 1/x, which is undefined at x = 0, and whose limits go to infinities of opposite signs as one approaches 0 from the left and right-hand sides.

For a cusp I might mention x^(2/3). This function is defined at x = 0; one can take the third root of any real number (positive or negative or 0). However, its derivative goes to negative infinity as one approaches x = 0 from the left, and positive infinity as one approaches x = 0 from the right.

3) There exists a vertical tangent if f'(x) = infinity (of either sign), and only if x exists on f(x)'s domain.

And I think now that I got it. The original function I posted about cannot have a cusp at either x = -2 or x = 2 since the function simply isn't defined at either point. A cusp necessitates that a function be defined at the point.
 
Last edited:
Mark44 said:
I hope you didn't pay a lot for this study guide...

I actually didn't; I photocopied a friend's.

;).
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
18K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K