You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Find Minimum value of
Where
Last edited by juantheron (2012-01-18 03:50:57)
Offline
Hi juantheron;
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
hi bobbym
i think this one is supposed to be graphed in the 3D coordinate system because it's a function of both x and y!
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
I graphed it right over here which is designed for these type functions. But, you have a point.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Thanks and Yes bobbym you are Right.
Now If anyone have a analytical solution plz post here.
Thanks
Offline
Hi juantheron;
I gave you one in post #2. It is hiding under the answer button. As anonimnystefy points out that graph only displays one slice of the actual graph. Anyway, I would never trust a graph unless I had no choice.
I will bring it down here.
Let me know if it is adequate.
For the analytical method you use calculus:
Set the partials of x and y equal to 0 and solve:
Those are the possible extrema.
Plug them into:
If Δ < 0 then we have neither a maximum or a minimum.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Thanks Bobbym would you like to give me some idea about
Is it and Determinant
Last edited by juantheron (2012-01-19 03:38:46)
Offline
Hi juantheron;
I think you mean discriminant. But it isn't that either. I got it out of an old calculus text I will see if I can find the title.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
OK Thanks bobbym
But one of my friend told me that we can solve it like taking
, becauseSo It Convert into
So Here Leading Coefficient of
is Negativeso Minimum is not possible
Is it Right
Last edited by juantheron (2012-01-19 03:53:18)
Offline
I got mine from Smails, "Analytical Geometry and Calculus," p 564 in the middle.
I found it also at these sites:
http://www.math.oregonstate.edu/home/pr … n_max.html
http://www.analyzemath.com/calculus/mul … inima.html
He is right about that parabola not having a minima. Why does he use x = 2y to get it?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
I also did not Understand
i also think that
Offline
Hi juantheron;
Use mine then, it is a standard book idea.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Pages: 1