Second Derivative Value via Implicit Differentiation
Hi guys, I haven't posted in a while but I was tutoring someone and ran into a problem that I thought had got right but blackboard said was incorrect.
The problem is
Now find the second derivative when x = 2 and y =1
I keep getting 3/4 as my answer. I solved it using implicit differentiation and also using partials differentiation to double check. The correct answer according to blackboard is -14/27
and can someone show me what im doing wrong with my latex. Guess im a bit rusty. Thanks
August 3rd 2011, 09:26 PM
pickslides
re: Second Derivative Value via Implicit Differentiation
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11rdc11
and can someone show me what im doing wrong with my latex. Guess im a bit rusty. Thanks
Use "tex" tags, "math" tags are no good here at the moment
August 3rd 2011, 09:27 PM
FernandoRevilla
re: Second Derivative Value via Implicit Differentiation
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11rdc11
Hi guys, I haven't posted in a while but I was tutoring someone and ran into a problem that I thought had got right but blackboard said was incorrect.
The problem is
Now find the second derivative when x = 2 and y =1
I keep getting 3/4 as my answer. I solved it using implicit differentiation and also using partials differentiation to double check. The correct answer according to blackboard is -14/27
and can someone show me what im doing wrong with my latex. Guess im a bit rusty. Thanks
Your function is defined by . Deriving: . Substituting we get or equivalently . Derive again and substitute .
August 3rd 2011, 09:48 PM
11rdc11
re: Second Derivative Value via Implicit Differentiation
Thanks guys but even when i take the second derivative i get the same
now taking the derivative again
which simplifies to
and plugging in the values you 3/4 right?
August 3rd 2011, 09:54 PM
pickslides
re: Second Derivative Value via Implicit Differentiation
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11rdc11
and plugging in the values you 3/4 right?
Looks good to me.
August 3rd 2011, 10:01 PM
11rdc11
re: Second Derivative Value via Implicit Differentiation
Thanks that is what I thought but it kept telling me that I was wrong.
August 3rd 2011, 10:02 PM
FernandoRevilla
re: Second Derivative Value via Implicit Differentiation
Deriving we get . Substituting you'll obtain .
August 3rd 2011, 11:00 PM
CaptainBlack
re: Second Derivative Value via Implicit Differentiation
Quote:
Originally Posted by pickslides
Use "tex" tags, "math" tags are no good here at the moment
You mean "Jedi math tags do not work on MHF ony tex..."
CB
August 4th 2011, 03:16 AM
tom@ballooncalculus
Re: Second Derivative Value via Implicit Differentiation
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11rdc11
now taking the derivative again
A point against the quotient rule? Many people prefer to see the quotient as a product, anyway. Just in case a picture helps...
... is the chain rule. Straight continuous lines differentiate downwards (integrate up) with respect to the main variable (in this case x), and the straight dashed line similarly but with respect to the dashed balloon expression (the inner function of the composite which is subject to the chain rule).
But this is wrapped inside the legs-uncrossed version of...