yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

Justification using second derivative: maximum point | AP Calculus AB | Khan Academy


3m read
·Nov 11, 2024

We're told that given that h prime of negative four is equal to zero, what is an appropriate calculus-based justification for the fact that h has a relative maximum at x is equal to negative four?

So, right over here we actually have the graph of our function h. This is the graph y is equal to h of x, and we don't have graphed the first derivative, but we do have graphed the second derivative right here in this orange color, h prime prime.

So they're telling us, given that h prime of negative four is equal to zero. So that's saying that given that the first derivative at x equals negative four is equal to zero, and you can see that the slope of the tangent line when x is equal to negative four does indeed equal zero.

So, given that, what is a calculus-based—let me underline that—a calculus-based justification for the fact that h has a relative maximum at x equals negative four?

So this first one says that the second derivative at x equals negative 4 is negative. Now, what does that tell us? If the second derivative is negative, that means that the first derivative is decreasing, which is another way of saying that we are dealing with a situation where, at least at x equals negative 4, we are concave downwards.

Which means that the general shape of our curve is going to look something like this around x equals negative 4. If the slope at x equals negative 4 is 0, well that tells us that yes, we indeed are dealing with a relative maximum point.

If the second derivative of that point was positive, then we would be concave upwards. And then if our derivative is 0 there, we'd say, okay, that's a relative minimum point. But this is indeed true: the second derivative is negative at x equals negative 4, which means we are concave downwards.

This means that we are an upside-down u, and that point where the derivative is 0 is indeed a relative maximum. So let me—sir, that is the answer, and we're done!

But let's just rule out the other ones. h increases before x equals negative four; that is indeed true. Before x equals negative four, we are increasing, and h decreases after it. That is true, and that is one rationale for thinking that, hey, we must have a maximum point assuming that our function is continuous at x equals negative four.

So this is true; it is a justification for a relative maximum, but it is not calculus-based, and so that's why we can rule this one out.

The second derivative has a relative minimum at x equals negative 4. Well, it does indeed seem to be true; there's a relative minimum there, but that's not a justification for why this is why h of negative 4, or why we have a relative maximum at x equals negative 4.

For example, you could have a relative minimum in your second derivative, but your second derivative could still be positive there. So what if the second derivative was like that? That would still be a relative minimum, but if it was positive at that point, then you would be concave upwards, which would mean that at x equals negative four, your original function wouldn't have a maximum point—it would have a minimum point.

And so just a relative minimum isn't enough in order to know that you are dealing with a relative maximum. You would have to know that the second derivative is negative there. Now, this fourth choice: h prime prime is concave up.

It does indeed look like the second derivative is concave up, but that by itself does not justify that the original function is concave up. For example, well, I could use this example right here. This is a potential second derivative that is concave upwards, but it is positive the entire time.

If your second derivative is positive the entire time, that means that your first derivative is increasing the entire time, which means that your original function is going to be concave upwards the entire time. And so if you're concave upwards the entire time, then you would not have a relative maximum at x equals negative four.

So we would rule that one out as well.

More Articles

View All
Reimagining Dinosaurs with Women of Impact | National Geographic
Okay, hi! I think we’re good to go. Welcome everybody! Um, today’s Women of Impact panel on reimagining dinosaurs, and we’ve got three incredible women paleontologists around the world, with London and the United States represented today in this panel. Um…
Epic Slow-Mo Drum Implosions!
[Music] So a while back, I did an imploding drum experiment. But at the time, I didn’t have a very good high-speed camera, and so I used something called optical flow to interpolate between the frames. It basically just tries to add in what must have happ…
Impostor Syndrome: What Is Your Worth?
Hi there. We’ve been looking for you. Yes, you. We know everything about you: how you’ve pretended to know things you have no idea about, how you’ve slept through years of your education, how you’ve received awards that you never deserved, and how you’ve …
Khan Academy and the Common Core
[Voiceover] A lot of users of Khan Academy, especially teachers, don’t fully know how much we have mapped and how much we have invested in the actual Common Core. As I often point out to folks, a standard is one thing, and the Common Core standards are de…
Why Four Cowboys Rode Wild Horses 3,000 Miles Across America (Part 3) | Nat Geo Live
10 years ago we had um 6 8,000 horses a year being adopted out and that number has plummeted to about 2500 a year. Part of it’s an awareness thing; part of it’s people don’t know horses. But I found one story um that really touched me. After the unbrande…
Government Shutdown Imminent, Rates Spike, Stocks Collapse
Back here at home, time is running out to avoid a government shutdown. Billions of Americans could go without paychecks, including members of the military. The country is headed for a shutdown, and everyone should prepare as such. Big guys, it’s Graham h…