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

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.

This is a very interesting question (and I really want to see what other answers you receive). I do not know of any general metatheorems ensuring that what you ask (in particular, about consistency strength) is the case, at least under reasonable conditions. However, arguments establishing the proof theoretic ordinal of a theory $T$ usually entail this. You […]

This is false; take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_set for a quick introduction. For details, look at Kechris's book on Classical Descriptive Set Theory. There you will find also some information on the history of this result, how it was originally thought to be true, and how the discovery of counterexamples led to the creation of desc […]

This is open. In $L(\mathbb R)$ the answer is yes. Hugh has several proofs of this, and it remains one of the few unpublished results in the area. The latest version of the statement (that I know of) is the claim in your parenthetical remark at the end. This gives determinacy in $L(\mathbb R)$ using, for example, a reflection argument. (I mentioned this a wh […]

A classical reference is Hypothèse du Continu by Waclaw Sierpiński (1934), available through the Virtual Library of Science as part of the series Mathematical Monographs of the Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Sierpiński discusses equivalences and consequences. The statements covered include examples from set theory, combinatorics, […]

There is a new journal of the European Mathematical Society that seems perfect for these articles: EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences. The description at the link reads: The EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences is dedicated to publishing authoritative surveys and high-level expositions in all areas of mathematical sciences. It is a peer-reviewed periodical […]

You may be interested in the following paper: Lorenz Halbeisen, and Norbert Hungerbühler. The cardinality of Hamel bases of Banach spaces, East-West Journal of Mathematics, 2, (2000) 153-159. There, Lorenz and Norbert prove a few results about the size of Hamel bases of arbitrary infinite dimensional Banach spaces. In particular, they show: Lemma 3.4. If $K\ […]

You just need to show that $\sum_{\alpha\in F}\alpha^k=0$ for $k=0,1,\dots,q-2$. This is clear for $k=0$ (understanding $0^0$ as $1$). But $\alpha^q-\alpha=0$ for all $\alpha$ so $\alpha^{q-1}-1=0$ for all $\alpha\ne0$, and the result follows from the Newton identities.

Nice question. Let me first point out that the Riemann Hypothesis and $\mathsf{P}$-vs-$\mathsf{NP}$ are much simpler than $\Pi^1_2$: The former is $\Pi^0_1$, see this MO question, and the assertion that $\mathsf{P}=\mathsf{NP}$ is a $\Pi^0_2$ statement ("for every code for a machine of such and such kind there is a code for a machine of such other kind […]

For brevity's sake, say that a theory $T$ is nice if $T$ is a consistent theory that can interpret Peano Arithmetic and admits a recursively enumerable set of axioms. For any such $T$, the statement "$T$ is consistent" can be coded as an arithmetic statement (saying that no number codes a proof of a contradiction from the axioms of $T$). What […]