# STEP 1 clock geometry / calculus problem

Watch
Announcements

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

STEP 1 2004 Question 4:

https://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com...20STEP%201.pdf

I'm struggling to see how the first and second derivatives relate to the rate of increase of x here.

My first idea was to try to consider the numerator of the first derivative, dx/d(theta), which is absin(theta), and since ab is constant and positive, deduce that the rate of increase of x must be greatest when sin(theta) is greatest at pi/2. This doesn't lead to the expression sought, but is it otherwise technically correct?

Thanks.

https://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com...20STEP%201.pdf

I'm struggling to see how the first and second derivatives relate to the rate of increase of x here.

My first idea was to try to consider the numerator of the first derivative, dx/d(theta), which is absin(theta), and since ab is constant and positive, deduce that the rate of increase of x must be greatest when sin(theta) is greatest at pi/2. This doesn't lead to the expression sought, but is it otherwise technically correct?

Thanks.

0

reply

Report

#2

(Original post by

STEP 1 2004 Question 4:

https://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com...20STEP%201.pdf

I'm struggling to see how the first and second derivatives relate to the rate of increase of x here.

My first idea was to try to consider the numerator of the first derivative, dx/d(theta), which is absin(theta), and since ab is constant and positive, deduce that the rate of increase of x must be greatest when sin(theta) is greatest at pi/2. This doesn't lead to the expression sought, but is it otherwise technically correct?

Thanks.

**jameshyland29**)STEP 1 2004 Question 4:

https://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com...20STEP%201.pdf

I'm struggling to see how the first and second derivatives relate to the rate of increase of x here.

My first idea was to try to consider the numerator of the first derivative, dx/d(theta), which is absin(theta), and since ab is constant and positive, deduce that the rate of increase of x must be greatest when sin(theta) is greatest at pi/2. This doesn't lead to the expression sought, but is it otherwise technically correct?

Thanks.

0

reply

Report

#3

**jameshyland29**)

STEP 1 2004 Question 4:

https://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com...20STEP%201.pdf

I'm struggling to see how the first and second derivatives relate to the rate of increase of x here.

My first idea was to try to consider the numerator of the first derivative, dx/d(theta), which is absin(theta), and since ab is constant and positive, deduce that the rate of increase of x must be greatest when sin(theta) is greatest at pi/2. This doesn't lead to the expression sought, but is it otherwise technically correct?

Thanks.

0

reply

(Original post by

No, it's incorrect. You have to consider the whole fraction, not just the numerator (assuming your denominator isn't constant w.r.t. theta).

**DFranklin**)No, it's incorrect. You have to consider the whole fraction, not just the numerator (assuming your denominator isn't constant w.r.t. theta).

Thanks.

0

reply

Report

#5

(Original post by

Ahh I see (I think!), so I guess that's because of the almost alternating nature of cos and sin -- I mean, if the term in the denominator was also sin(theta) rather than cos(theta), then might it be possible to see at a glance that dx/d(theta) would be a maximum when theta = pi/2?

Thanks.

**jameshyland29**)Ahh I see (I think!), so I guess that's because of the almost alternating nature of cos and sin -- I mean, if the term in the denominator was also sin(theta) rather than cos(theta), then might it be possible to see at a glance that dx/d(theta) would be a maximum when theta = pi/2?

Thanks.

**every**function f(x)/g(x) can be written as , at which point looking at the denominator (i.e. 1) doesn't tell you anything useful.

0

reply

(Original post by

No, it's got nothing to do with sin and cos. You can't possibly ignore the denominator when looking for the minimum/maximum value. To see why this can't work, note that, for example,

**DFranklin**)No, it's got nothing to do with sin and cos. You can't possibly ignore the denominator when looking for the minimum/maximum value. To see why this can't work, note that, for example,

**every**function f(x)/g(x) can be written as , at which point looking at the denominator (i.e. 1) doesn't tell you anything useful.g(x) = f(x) / (3 + f(x))

so that g(x) is always a maximum when f(x) is a maximum. Would there be any reason to bother taking the second derivative to find the maximum in such a case?

Thanks.

0

reply

Report

#7

(Original post by

Sorry I wasn't very clear before, I meant could you essentially "ignore" the denominator if the only variable it contains is the same variable as in the numerator, so that both numerator and denominator increase together, for instance:

g(x) = f(x) / (3 + f(x))

so that g(x) is always a maximum when f(x) is a maximum. Would there be any reason to bother taking the second derivative to find the maximum in such a case?

Thanks.

**jameshyland29**)Sorry I wasn't very clear before, I meant could you essentially "ignore" the denominator if the only variable it contains is the same variable as in the numerator, so that both numerator and denominator increase together, for instance:

g(x) = f(x) / (3 + f(x))

so that g(x) is always a maximum when f(x) is a maximum. Would there be any reason to bother taking the second derivative to find the maximum in such a case?

Thanks.

There are scenarios where it does work, but you would need to justify why a particular expression was one of them.

1

reply

Report

#8

Obviously agree with the comments about having to consider the whole fraction, in general.

Have you managed to solve the question by doing this? Just been through it and its not too bad once you get started.

Have you managed to solve the question by doing this? Just been through it and its not too bad once you get started.

0

reply

(Original post by

*Still* no. E.g. consider f(x)/(1+f(x)^2). Numerator and denominator are both maximized when f(x) is, but the function as a whole is maximized when f(x)=1.

There are scenarios where it does work, but you would need to justify why a particular expression was one of them.

**DFranklin**)*Still* no. E.g. consider f(x)/(1+f(x)^2). Numerator and denominator are both maximized when f(x) is, but the function as a whole is maximized when f(x)=1.

There are scenarios where it does work, but you would need to justify why a particular expression was one of them.

(Original post by

Obviously agree with the comments about having to consider the whole fraction, in general.

Have you managed to solve the question by doing this? Just been through it and its not too bad once you get started.

**mqb2766**)Obviously agree with the comments about having to consider the whole fraction, in general.

Have you managed to solve the question by doing this? Just been through it and its not too bad once you get started.

0

reply

Report

#10

(Original post by

Got it. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply. Do you mean have I solved it by considering the whole fraction and determining its maximum value by inspection? If so I just tried it and it seems rather hard but I'm clear about why it's rarely the best idea to attempt such a thing now, which is the main thing!

**jameshyland29**)Got it. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply. Do you mean have I solved it by considering the whole fraction and determining its maximum value by inspection? If so I just tried it and it seems rather hard but I'm clear about why it's rarely the best idea to attempt such a thing now, which is the main thing!

0

reply

X

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top