9.3 Workshop Solutions 3
i) True, since and .
ii) False. The set of points given by is only half of the line : the points with are given by .
iii) False. The gradient is .
To see this, we differentiate with respect to to get , so that and hence .
iv) False: we also require (see slide 4.11 in the notes).
W3.1. We have and
|
|
|
so lies on the right branch of the hyperbola.
(ii)
and so
|
|
|
W3.2 (i) With and we have
|
|
|
so lies on .
(ii) We have
|
|
|
so the tangent has gradient
|
|
|
and the tangent has equation
|
|
|
whereas the normal has gradient
|
|
|
so the normal has equation
|
|
|
(iii) To determine the arc length we integrate over , from to ; another possibility is to integrate over , from to .
If we try to integrate over then we obtain a slightly awkward integral of , which needs a substitution.
Since and , we see that the arc length is
|
|
|
Now we make the substitution , so that and .
Thus the integral becomes
|
|
|
We therefore get the awkward result that the arc length is , but this can be simplified somewhat.
Firstly, , so .
Secondly, we can express uniquely in terms of by solving the equation , so , whence , so .
In particular, .
So the arc length from to is .
W3.3 (i) We let and , then
|
|
|
hence lies on ; moreover
|
|
|
so
|
|
|
(ii) Now let and ; then
|
|
|
hence lies on ; moreover,
|
|
|
so
|
|
|
W3.4. (i) We observe that , so lies on
, and , so the point is in the first quadrant.
(ii) We calculate
|
|
|
so arclength is given by
|
|
|
so
|
|
|
so we substitute and , so get
|
|
|
This calculation was first carried out by Neil, and the
simple form of the answer caused much surprise at the time.
(iii) When , the precise value of is , which is to three decimal places.
To apply Simpson’s rule to the integral , we first have to evaluate the function at the three points , and .
The respective values are , , and .
Thus Simpson’s rule produces an estimate of
|
|
|
This gives us a value of , less than from the precise value.
W3.5. Let ; so that gives the
equation for the ellipse and defines implicitly as a function of .
To find we can either use the formula , or we can differentiate the equation with respect to .
The second approach is more instructive, so this is how we’ll do it here.
(However, both methods amount to the same thing.)
Since , when we differentiate with respect to we get:
|
|
|
Now we collect terms together, so that
|
|
|
(Note that and , which tallies with .)
W3.6. (i) We suppose that the formula
|
|
|
defines implicitly as a function of , and we
differentiate to obtain
|
|
|
so that
|
|
|
and hence
|
|
|
Alternatively, let with first-order
partial
derivatives
|
|
|
Then the required derivative is
|
|
|
(ii) We can differentiate the formula
|
|
|
with respect to , and obtain by the chain rule
|
|
|
|
|
|
which reduces, when we multiply by , to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternatively, we can introduce
|
|
|
and calculate the first-order partial derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
hence
|
|
|
W3.7.(i) When , we have ; so that .
(ii) We assume that is defined implicitly as a function
of and we differentiate the relation
|
|
|
to obtain
|
|
|
hence
|
|
|
Alternatively, let so that
and
; then
|
|
|
From the formula above,
we see that the tangents to the curve
have gradients
|
|
|
For the equations of the tangents, we have:
|
|
|
so we get the two lines at the respective points .
W3.8. (i) We calculate the first-order partial derivatives of
to be
|
|
|
the second-order partial derivatives are
|
|
|
(ii) The stationary points occur where
|
|
|
From the first equation, we deduce that , so the second
equation
becomes , or , with roots and ;
hence the stationary
points are
|
|
|
(iii) The Hessian discriminant is
|
|
|
The stationary points are classified in the following table.
|
|
|
W3.9. (i) We have and , so both partial derivatives are zero exactly when and .
Multiplying, we obtain: , hence .
It follows that , so .
Thus there is one stationary point .
(ii) Here and , so if both partial derivatives are zero we must have , so .
Substituting back into the equation , we get , so .
Over , there is only one solution here: , and so .
Thus there is one turning point .
(iii) Here and .
Thus if then either or ; if then , so .
Combining these, if and then ; if and then .
Thus there are three stationary points: , and .
Showing existence of saddle points
i) In this case we have , and so that .
This is clearly negative for all values of so that any stationary point is a saddle point.
(It only remains to recall that we found one stationary point for .)
ii) We recall that has one stationary point .
In particular, at the stationary point.
Now , , .
If then we have , and .
Then
|
|
|
Thus for all , and in particular for the unique stationary point.
Hence is a saddle point for .
iii) Recall that has three stationary points: , and .
We have , and .
Therefore .
We have at the points so that both of these are saddle points.
(We have at the point (so that our existing methods do not allow us to determine the nature of this stationary point.)
W3.10.
To find stationary points, we first look for simultaneous solutions of the equations , .
Since
|
|
|
the stationary points are the points satisfying and .
Then , so or .
Then in these three cases we have or .
So there are three stationary points: , and .
To determine what types these points are, we calculate the second order partial derivatives: we have
|
|
|
Thus .
In particular, at the points and , and are positive; at , is negative.
So and are local minima, while is a saddle point.