Welcome to Eyes on FF!
>>> Click here to download Final Fantasy Ringtones
Oh no!
 

Post New Thread  Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Xaven
Missing.
Xaven's Avatar
Location: Alt + F4
#1
Default Calculus: Implicit Differentiation

Ah! Why doesn't it work!? Examples are a good way to see and learn, I suppose. Can someone implicitly differentiate, oh, for example:

y^2=(x^2-9)/(x^2+9)

? I have:

2y(dy/dx)=2x/(2x)
2y(dy/dx)=1
dy/dx=1/(2y)

But my book doesn't agree with me. Wah!
Old 10-31-2007, 04:51 AM
Reply With Quote
Xaven is offline  
Odaisé Gaelach
Ciddieless since 2004
Location: Ireland
Default

Assuming that what I've done is not complete and utter bollocks...

y^2 = (x^2 - 9) / (x^2 + 9)

y = [(x^2 - 9) / (x^2 + 9)]^1/2 - (Square root of the right hand side)

So, using the chain rule and the quotient rule:

dy/dx = [1/2] . [[(x^2 - 9) / (x^2 + 9)]^-1/2] . [36x / (x^4+18x^2+81)]

Or, see attachment.

All that you need to realise that if y^2 = something, then y = the squared root of something. After that, it all falls into place and becomes just your everyday chain rule calculus.
Attached Images
File Type: gif image001.gif (1.6 KB, 21 view)
Old 10-31-2007, 07:01 AM
Reply With Quote
Odaisé Gaelach is offline  
o_O
Site Staff
nerd
o_O's Avatar
Location: New Zealand
Default

The problem with your original working is that you differentiated the quotient without using the quotient rule. You can't just differentiate the numerator and the denominator separately. Here's my working:

y^2 = (x^2 - 9) / (x^2 + 9)

First:
let f = x^2 - 9
let g = x^2 + 9
let h = y^2
Observe that with respect to x:
f' = 2x
g' = 2x
h' = 2y(dy/dx)
By the quotient rule:
h' = (gf' - fg')/g^2

Therefore:
2y(dy/dx) = [2x(x^2+9) - 2x(x^2-9)]/(x^2+9)^2

And finally, simplifying:
2y(dy/dx) = 36x / (x^2+9)^2
y(dy/dx) = 36x / 2(x^2+9)^2

dy/dx = 18x / y(x^2+9)^2

Take that with a grain of salt - I haven't done implicit differentiation in several years. What does your book say?
Old 10-31-2007, 03:14 PM
Reply With Quote
o_O is offline  
rubah
Site Staff
Cid's Knight
Dusk and Starshine
rubah's Avatar
Location: Don't forget you're not alone
Default

That's what I got, Mike!

An image (because text sucks to understand math)

Old 10-31-2007, 04:15 PM
Reply With Quote
rubah is offline  
blackmage_nuke
That's me!!
blackmage_nuke's Avatar
Location: Yes
Default

Wouldnt having y in you final answer make it not finished?

I got Odaisé Gaelach's answer, but there should be a +- out the front or something

and i simplified it abit further and got (18x)/[(x^2+9)^3/2(x^2-9)^1/2]

THat being said i dont know what "implicit" means so i could be doing it completely wrong

Last edited by blackmage_nuke; 11-01-2007 at 12:51 PM.
Old 11-01-2007, 12:37 PM
Reply With Quote
blackmage_nuke is offline  
Flying Mullet
Site Staff
Cid's Knight
*this space for rent*
Flying Mullet's Avatar
Location: Finding my monkey cage exit strategy
Default

Having y in the answer is fine. You're trying to find the slope of the graph at any given point with respect to x and y.

I got the same answer as o_O and rubah.
Old 11-01-2007, 03:45 PM
Reply With Quote
Flying Mullet is offline  
rubah
Site Staff
Cid's Knight
Dusk and Starshine
rubah's Avatar
Location: Don't forget you're not alone
Default

Since it's implicit, you don't need to get rid of both variables. You're differentiating two different things at the same time, or at least that's what I thought it was. You could probably do some voodoo with the original equation, but why bother? x.x;
Old 11-01-2007, 04:47 PM
Reply With Quote
rubah is offline  
o_O
Site Staff
nerd
o_O's Avatar
Location: New Zealand
Default

Yes Allie, that's exactly what it means. In this case, Implicit differentiation is used because separating the equation would be a pain in the ass.

Instead of applying a regular differentiation and a quotient rule you would have to apply a regular differentiation and the quotient rule inside of the chain rule. Instead of doing a relatively simple differentiation of both sides, you end up having to differentiate y on one side and ((x^2-9)/(x^2+9))^-1 on the other. Ok, it's not really that complex a formula but for pedagogical purposes it illustrates the point well.

It's also worth pointing out that taking the square root of the right hand side before differentiation means the process is no longer implicit, just regular differentiation.
Old 11-02-2007, 05:50 AM
Reply With Quote
o_O is offline  
Post New Thread  Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2007, Eyes on Final Fantasy.
Sean Robinson Design