Last time: | Next time: |
For the final, I am going to allow you two pages of notes. I hope that the process of distilling your notes down to a small subset of ideas and results will do two things: remind you of them, in the process of copying them down; and encouraging you to focus on the things that you don't know -- and celebrating the things that you do know!
Why do students waste their time, and antagonize the grader who looks with horror upon every slope-intercept form of a tangent line that he sees?
You have the point: (0.5, 0.1253); you compute the slope: \(m=0.7559\). You immediately write the equation of the tangent line as \[ y-0.1253=0.7559(x-0.5) \] and you're done. Why would anyone tamper with that? It's perfect!
Here's the exam.
There are also indeterminate forms which are not quotients, which can be turned into quotients in clever ways; and then one can apply L'Hôpital's rule.
This is all part of using derivatives (and other information) to understand/graph functions, and to solve problems in what is sometimes referred to as "real life"!
If you've ever fiddled with the dial on a radio, trying to get a station to come in better, you understand: you're adjusting the position of a value along an axis to get the clearest signal -- the maximal amount of signal to noise.
It's the same with a thermostat, perhaps -- only you're fighting someone else in the house. For your money, you'd like it a little warmer; but they'd like it a little cooler. (This is a more complicated optimization problem!)
The area of the pen is $Area=width*length$, or $A=w*l$ -- but the two dimensions are not independent, since we know the perimeter: \[ 2(w+l)=200 \]
Hence we conclude that \[ w+l=100 \] or that \[ l=100-w \]
Therefore \[ A(w)=w*(100-w) \]
Where is this function a maximum? Well, we don't even need calculus to solve this one -- we can use symmetry, and the fact that $A$'s graph is a parabola:
The peak has to occur exactly half way between the roots (0 and 100), so when $w=50$. But this makes $l=50$ as well, indicating that the maximum area $A$ occurs when the pen is square, 50 meters by 50 meters (with an area of 2500$m^2$).
But if we'd differentiated, sure enough we'd find that $w=50$ is the critical point: \[ A'(w)=100 - 2w = 0 \textrm{ when } w=50 \]
Calculus and algebra both allow us to determine that the ideal rectangular pen for our critters is a square. (Although a more advanced form of calculus, called the calculus of variations, allows us to conclude that to maximize the area per perimeter, you should construct a circular fence -- a corral!)
Now the two dimensions are related by \[ 2w+l=200 \]
so \[ l=200 - 2w=2(100 - w) \]
Therefore \[ A(w)=2w*(100-w) \]
No need to differentiate: this is just twice the previous equation, so it has the same critical point: \[ A'(w)=100 - 2w = 0 \textrm{ when } w=50 \] But now the length is 100m. You might think of this as two of the previous square pens glued together!
Generally we seek the global maximum or the global minimum -- which we have found in the cases above. Because those functions were quadratics, we know that they have only one point on their graphs where the derivative is zero -- and no points where their derivatives don't exist (although there were boundaries beyond which we couldn't go -- no lengths or widths were to be negative, for example).
One other important consideration is the domain. In those problems, the dimensions had to be positive. So we could have constrained the solutions to be where both $w>0$ and $l>0$.
This sets up the possibility for the maximum or minimum to be at the border (as is true in this case -- the global minimum is 0 -- if we run the fencing the whole length, so that it's all length, with $w=0$. This results in a fence that Fido won't like at all!
Furthermore, however, we might have local "extrema" (maxes or mins), that, while larger than their neighbors, give Fido only a local advantage -- but a better solution could be found elsewhere in the domain:
and this set of images showing (some of) the kinds of things that can go wrong (at least in the case of a continuous function -- if you introduce discontinuities, things can get uglier):
Figure 3.1.5. From left to right,
Here's the graph of the derivative discussed in that activity: