Author |
Message |
Oliver Thought Maker
Joined: 28 Feb 2004 Posts: 6096 Location: Antwerp, Belgium
|
Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:41 am |
|
lionhead is correct, I'll post a new question later
|
|
|
EnsignParis Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257
|
Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:55 pm |
|
For the previous question, is this what we are supposed to be looking at?
And then solving for x?
|
|
|
Oliver Thought Maker
Joined: 28 Feb 2004 Posts: 6096 Location: Antwerp, Belgium
|
Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm |
|
I e-mailed you a picture. Perhaps that will clear it up
|
|
|
EnsignParis Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257
|
Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:56 am |
|
Sorry, I did get the email. It looks like I deleted it however.
However, I think this is what you told me what it looked like:
|
|
|
TrekkieMage Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004 Posts: 5335 Location: Hiding
|
Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:35 am |
|
x= 7.5?
I got out rulers and paper and measured. So I guess I cheated...
|
|
|
EnsignParis Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257
|
Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:18 pm |
|
Hope you don't mind if I post a question. .
You have the function f(x)=x^3. What is the slope of the line tangent to the curve at (1,1)?
|
|
|
TrekkieMage Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004 Posts: 5335 Location: Hiding
|
Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:10 pm |
|
Lemme guess, calculus? I've gotten a bunch of questions like that lately.
You have to find the slope of the curve at (1,1) via derivatives I believe.
|
|
|
EnsignParis Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257
|
Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:49 am |
|
Yes, calculus. Related to derivitaves, but you don't need to use them to find this out. You can actually do it via precalculus methods.
However, you do need to understand what a limit is.
I'll give you a hint:
If you take secant lines with the point (1,1), and one other point on the curve, the closer you get to (1,1) with your secant line, the closer the slope of the secant line will be to the slope of the tangent line.
ie: the slope of the tangent line is the limit of the slopes of the secant lines containing the point (1,1)
|
|
|
webtaz99 Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 1229 Location: The Other Side
|
Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:41 pm |
|
In the real world you could just frikkin measure it.
There's an old (not too funny) joke:
An engineer and a mathematician are put in a room with a beautiful woman. They are told that every five minutes they can move half the distance to her.
The mathematician does his math and wails, "We never really get to her!"
The engineer grins and says, "We'll get close enough."
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
EnsignParis Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257
|
Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:34 pm |
|
Alright, here's the answer. I'm going to use calculus to answer it, because well, it's just so much simpler that way.
f(x)=x^3
f'(x)=3x^2
f'(1)=3(1)^2
f'(1)=3
The slope at that point is 3.
If you want the equation of the line, you can just plug it into point slope form, and switch to y=mx+b, if you so wish.
y-1=3(x-1)
y=3x-3+1
y=3x-2
|
|
|
TrekkieMage Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004 Posts: 5335 Location: Hiding
|
Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:27 pm |
|
EnsignParis wrote: | Alright, here's the answer. I'm going to use calculus to answer it, because well, it's just so much simpler that way.
f(x)=x^3
f'(x)=3x^2
f'(1)=3(1)^2
f'(1)=3
The slope at that point is 3.
If you want the equation of the line, you can just plug it into point slope form, and switch to y=mx+b, if you so wish.
y-1=3(x-1)
y=3x-3+1
y=3x-2 |
Why bother switching to y=mx+b? I find the point-slope formula much easier...
|
|
|
EnsignParis Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257
|
Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:22 am |
|
Yeah, point slope is easier, but it's more clear in slope intercept.
On homework and stuff, I'll just leave it in point slope, unless it specifically says to do otherwise. But for clarity, I like to solve for y.
|
|
|
Oliver Thought Maker
Joined: 28 Feb 2004 Posts: 6096 Location: Antwerp, Belgium
|
Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:31 am |
|
What's the derivate of x to the power x?
|
|
|
webtaz99 Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 1229 Location: The Other Side
|
Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:04 am |
|
It's been a long time since I took calculus, but....
d/dx of x^n = n*x^(n-1), so
d/dx of x^x = x*x(x-1)
IIRC, multiplying equal variables means adding exponents, so
d/dx of x^x = x^1*x^(x-1) = x^(x-1+1) = x^x
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Sevensquare Ensign, Junior Grade
Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 35
|
Thu May 04, 2006 9:00 pm |
|
It don't work like that. The calculus students in college have to go through this.
If you're interested in the material---
f(x) = b^x
f' (x) = (b^x)ln b
f(x) = e^x
f' (x) = e^x
There is no derivative for x^x , so the identity
x^x = e^(x ln x)
now things are looking good
Dx e^(x ln x) = e^(x ln x) Dx(x ln x)
= e^(x ln x)(ln x + 1)
= x^x(ln x + 1)
Presto
|
|
|
EnsignParis Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257
|
Tue May 09, 2006 10:51 am |
|
webtaz,
If you graph x^x, you can clearly see that the derivative isn't going to be x^x.
This however, would work for f(x)=n^x and f' (x)=n^x where n is a constant, but not for f(x)=x^x.
|
|
|
5thhouse Rear Admiral
Joined: 05 May 2002 Posts: 3842 Location: Santa Barbara, California
|
Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:17 am |
|
oooh this is fun! I've got one....not that hard...
integrate [(2x^3-4x^2-15x+5)/(x^2-2x-8 )] dx
sorry had to fix the smilies with my 8 )
|
|
|
Sevensquare Ensign, Junior Grade
Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 35
|
Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:20 pm solve derivative |
|
O.K.---
((10x)^4)-(32x^3)-(69x^2)+(134x)+110)/((x^2)-(2x)-^2
Oooooh the math.
If any of those unknowns are exponents your dealing with an impossibly large equation with large numbers.
which nobody does.
|
|
|
5thhouse Rear Admiral
Joined: 05 May 2002 Posts: 3842 Location: Santa Barbara, California
|
Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:36 pm |
|
That is not correct...unless..well I still don't think you would get that and I am lazy to find out.
Since it's been up for so long I'm going to put up the answer if there are no objections?
|
|
|
5thhouse Rear Admiral
Joined: 05 May 2002 Posts: 3842 Location: Santa Barbara, California
|
Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:39 am |
|
alright, since no objections have been voiced the answer is (and I doubble checked with my CAS so I'm sure it is right ):
- ((Log(x+2))/2) + ((3Log (x-4))/2) + x^2
|
|
|
5thhouse Rear Admiral
Joined: 05 May 2002 Posts: 3842 Location: Santa Barbara, California
|
Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:46 pm |
|
To get that answer you have to long divide x^2 -2x -8 into 2x^3-4x-15x+5. When you do that you get 2x with a remainder of (x+5). So the integral above which I am lazy to retype = the integral 2x dx + integral (x+5)/ (x^2-2x- dx. The first of the two is simple and just gives you x^2. If you factor the denomenator of the second interval you have x^2 + integral (x+5)/((x-4)(x+2)) dx. (x+5)/((x-4)(x+2)) = A/(x+2) + B/(x-4). Solving for A and B you get that (x+5)/((x-4)(x+2)) = -1/2(x+2) + 3/2(x-4). Which means that you now have x^2 + integral (-1/2(x+2))dx + integral (3/2(x-4))dx. When you solve those simple integrals and simplify you get the answer I put above. Of course to be proper you add the integration constant on as well. Well to be really proper you would have been doing C1 etc... with those integrals...but it's not that important here.
|
|
|
lionhead Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004 Posts: 4020 Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:55 pm |
|
Quote: | oooh this is fun! I've got one....not that hard...
integrate [(2x^3-4x^2-15x+5)/(x^2-2x-8 )] dx
|
You think Stephen Hawking visits this forum from time to time or something?
You lost me at "Integrate".
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
5thhouse Rear Admiral
Joined: 05 May 2002 Posts: 3842 Location: Santa Barbara, California
|
Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:18 pm |
|
sorry I didn't think it was that hard...something around 2nd -semester calculus. Just think if you lived in the federation you would have done that before you were a teenager
|
|
|
5thhouse Rear Admiral
Joined: 05 May 2002 Posts: 3842 Location: Santa Barbara, California
|
Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:13 pm |
|
Okay...given no one liked my last problem maybe something easy?
C14 is a radioactive isotope of Carbon. It decays at a rate proportional to the amount that is present. Its half-life is 5730 years. If 10 grams was origionally present, how much will be present after 2000 years. (hint: if you don't know the formula required, use a differential equation.)
|
|
|
EnsignParis Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257
|
Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:46 pm |
|
5thhouse wrote: | Okay...given no one liked my last problem maybe something easy?
C14 is a radioactive isotope of Carbon. It decays at a rate proportional to the amount that is present. Its half-life is 5730 years. If 10 grams was origionally present, how much will be present after 2000 years. (hint: if you don't know the formula required, use a differential equation.) |
You can solve this by simply plugging values into y=b*a^x
At zero years you'll obviously have 10 grams (y=10). Also, at zero years, (a^x)=1 [because anything to the zero power=1), so since we have 10=b*(a^0) we can solve for 'b' and b=10.
So now, we have to find the other constant 'a.' This will be easy since we already know what y, b, and x will be, so all we have to do is plug values in.
y= 5g
b= 10
x= 5730 years
5=(10)(a)^5730
a=-.99988 or .99988
We know that since we are dealing with a positive time, x is going to be positive and we can throw out the negative number.
Now, we have our equation, which is:
f(x)=10*(.99988)^x
To figure out how much is left after 2000 years, all we have to do is plug 2000 for x into the equation
f(2000)=10*(.99988)^2000=7.8662g remaining. (about, since I was doing some rounding throughout the problem).
This answer makes sense if you think about it too. We know the answer is going to be somewhere between 10 and 5 grams, because we know that about 3000 years later, its going to be at 5 grams, and 2000 years earlier it was at 10 grams. We are in between these two numbers, and it seems appropriate, so it seems that I did all my work correctly
|
|
|
|