Quiz 8 is here. Please remember that the second midterm is this Wednesday.

Solutions follow.

Problem 1 asks us to determine the local maxima and minma of .

We first note that the function is continuous and differentiable everywhere, except at , where is not even defined. We have

using the quotient rule. Since for all , it follows that the only solution to is . Since is and is , it follows that the only extreme point of occurs at , and it is a minimum.

This completes the problem, but it may be instructive to analyze the function a bit more.

Note that

and ,

so the -axis is a vertical asymptote at .

Also,

so the -axis is a horizontal asymptote as , while, using L’Hôpital’s rule, we have

.

Note that if and if . Also, from the sign of the derivative, is decreasing in and in , and it is increasing in .

Finally,

Clearly, if and if .

This means that is concave down in and concave up in .

Combining these observations allows us to sketch with reasonable accuracy. The graph of the function is shown below.

(Click the graph to enlarge.)

Problem 2 asks us to consider the function , and to indicate the intervals where it is increasing or decreasing, concave up, or concave down.

This function and its derivative are polynomials, so they are defined for all values of . First, we identify the values where .

We have

Next, we identify the values where .

We have

so , or , so or .

Note that , i.e., the zeroes of and of intertwine. (This is actually a general phenomenon.)

To determine the concavity of in the intervals determined by the zeroes of , we evaluate at points in the intervals and . Thanks to the second derivative test, we can save some time, and use these evaluations to (simultaneously) determine the extrema of and the intervals where increases and decreases.

We have , so is a local maximum of , and is concave down in .

Similarly, so is a local maximum of , and is concave down in .

Finally, , so is a local minimum of and is concave up in .

Moreover (due to the placement of its extreme points) we can also deduce that is increasing in decreasing in increasing in and decreasing in , so give us not just local maxima but global maxima of

The graph of is shown below.

(Click the image to enlarge).

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 24th, 2010 at 1:41 pm and is filed under 170: Calculus I. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I thought about this question a while ago, while teaching a topics course. Since one can easily check that $${}|{\mathbb R}|=|{\mathcal P}({\mathbb N})|$$ by a direct construction that does not involve diagonalization, the question can be restated as: Is there a proof of Cantor's theorem that ${}|X|

First of all, note (as Monroe does in his question) that if $\mathbb P,\mathbb Q$ are ccc, then $\mathbb P\times\mathbb Q$ is $\mathfrak c^+$-cc, as an immediate consequence of the Erdős-Rado theorem $(2^{\aleph_0})^+\to(\aleph_1)^2_2$. (This is to say, if $\mathbb P$ and $\mathbb Q$ do not admit uncountable antichains, then any antichain in their product ha […]

The technique of almost disjoint forcing was introduced in MR0289291 (44 #6482). Jensen, R. B.; Solovay, R. M. Some applications of almost disjoint sets. In Mathematical Logic and Foundations of Set Theory (Proc. Internat. Colloq., Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 84–104, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970. Fix an almost disjoint family $X=(x_\alpha:\alpha

At the moment most of those decisions come from me, at least for computer science papers (those with a 68 class as primary). The practice of having proceedings and final versions of papers is not exclusive to computer science, but this is where it is most common. I've found more often than not that the journal version is significantly different from the […]

The answer is no in general. For instance, by what is essentially an argument of Sierpiński, if $(X,\Sigma,\nu)$ is a $\sigma$-finite continuous measure space, then no non-null subset of $X$ admits a $\nu\times\nu$-measurable well-ordering. The proof is almost verbatim the one here. It is consistent (assuming large cardinals) that there is an extension of Le […]

A notion now considered standard of primitive recursive set function is introduced in MR0281602 (43 #7317). Jensen, Ronald B.; Karp, Carol. Primitive recursive set functions. In 1971 Axiomatic Set Thoory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967) pp. 143–176 Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I. The concept is use […]

The power of a set is its cardinality. (As opposed to its power set, which is something else.) As you noticed in the comments, Kurepa trees are supposed to have countable levels, although just saying that a tree has size and height $\omega_1$ is not enough to conclude this, so the definition you quoted is incomplete as stated. Usually the convention is that […]

The key problem in the absence of the axiom of replacement is that there may be well-ordered sets $S$ that are too large in the sense that they are longer than any ordinal. In that case, the collection of ordinals isomorphic to an initial segment of $S$ would be the class of all ordinals, which is not a set. For example, with $\omega$ denoting as usual the f […]

R. Solovay proved that the provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ sets are Lebesgue measurable (and have the property of Baire). A set $A$ is provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ iff there is a real $a$, a $\Sigma^1_2$ formula $\phi(x,y)$ and a $\Pi^1_2$ formula $\psi(x,y)$ such that $A=\{t\mid \phi(t,a)\}=\{t\mid\psi(t,a)\}$, and $\mathsf{ZFC}$ proves that $\phi$ and $\psi$ […]