leehuan's All-Levels-Of-Maths SOS thread (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Yes. But take care with signs.
Right. From memory it's the derivatives of the reciprocals (of the hyperbolic functions) that get the negative?

As opposed to trig where it was the co-functions
 

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Right. From memory it's the derivatives of the reciprocals (of the hyperbolic functions) that get the negative?

As opposed to trig where it was the co-functions
actually it would be safer to use the exponential definitions...
 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Oh actually that's clever

 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Just remember that sinh and cosh don't change sign when differentiated, and deduce all sign things from that. I don't memorise this stuff despite using it pretty often.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A

For the csch it works the same, because when we multiply top and bottom by csch(x) + coth(x) (which is analogous to what we'd do to integrate csc(x) in the circular trig. cases), we see that the derivatives of csch(x) and coth(x) match their circular trig. analogs. I.e. (coth(x))′ = -csch2(x) and (csch(x))′ = -csch(x)*coth(x).

However, if we try doing the same thing for sech(x) as we'd do for the sec(x) (i.e. multiply top and bottom by sech(x) + tanh(x)), we see that it doesn't quite work out. This is because the derivative of sech(x) is not sech(x)*tanh(x), but rather -sech(x)*tanh(x) (a negative sign pops out). For this reason, the antiderivative of sech(x) is of a different shape to that of sec(x). To find the antiderivative of sech(x), use either the exponential definitions or write it as 1/cosh(x) and multiply top and bottom by cosh(x), and then use the identity cosh2(x) = 1 + sinh2(x) on the denominator. This will lead to an answer of tan-1(sinh(x)).
 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Yeah I know, it's convenient to use just sinh and cosh.

But I think I just noticed the pattern the day I learnt them and went with the flow
 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
For the csch it works the same, because when we multiply top and bottom by csch(x) + coth(x) (which is analogous to what we'd do to integrate csc(x) in the circular trig. cases), we see that the derivatives of csch(x) and coth(x) match their circular trig. analogs. I.e. (coth(x))′ = -csch2(x) and (csch(x))′ = -csch(x)*coth(x).

However, if we try doing the same thing for sech(x) as we'd do for the sec(x) (i.e. multiply top and bottom by sech(x) + tanh(x)), we see that it doesn't quite work out. This is because the derivative of sech(x) is not sech(x)*tanh(x), but rather -sech(x)*tanh(x). For this reason, the antiderivative of sech(x) is of a different shape to that of sec(x). To find the antiderivative of sech(x), use either the exponential definitions or write it as 1/cosh(x) and multiply top and bottom by cosh(x), and then use the identity cosh2(x) = 1 + sinh2(x) on the denominator.
Ohhh point
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Right. From memory it's the derivatives of the reciprocals (of the hyperbolic functions) that get the negative?

As opposed to trig where it was the co-functions
Pretty much all of the hyperbolic trig. ones are the same as their circular trig. counterparts in terms of derivatives. The only one that changes is that sech(x) gets a negative sign when differentiated (and of course that cosh(x) doesn't get a negative when differentiated; this is essentially the cause of the sign change for sech(x)'s one). You can see a table of the derivatives of the hyperbolic functions in the blue section near the bottom of this page: http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/DiffHyperTrigFcns.aspx .
 

KingOfActing

lukewarm mess
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
1,016
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2016

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
I'd say it's strictly increasing on each of the sub intervals of it's domain that have no discontinuities. x > y implies f(x) > f(y) only if x,y <-3 or -3 < x,y < 3 or 3 < x,y
Isn't that the definition of monotonically increasing or decreasing?

f(x)>f(y) <=> x>y

Reverse the direction for the other one.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure this is the definition of monotonically increasing, which means there cannot be any discontinuities that jump downwards.

This does leave room for upward jumping discontinuities, but that's not a big concern.
 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
So far with proving that a function is injective I know of two methods:

1. f(x)=f(y) <=> x=y
2. monotone

Is there anything else that might interest me?

Also, this would not be considered surjective right:
f: [0,inf) -> R, f(x)=x^2
 

KingOfActing

lukewarm mess
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
1,016
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Isn't that the definition of monotonically increasing or decreasing?

f(x)>f(y) <=> x>y

Reverse the direction for the other one.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure this is the definition of monotonically increasing, which means there cannot be any discontinuities that jump downwards.

This does leave room for upward jumping discontinuities, but that's not a big concern.
Strictly increasing. Monotonic increasing is <=, strictly is <.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
So far with proving that a function is injective I know of two methods:

1. f(x)=f(y) <=> x=y
2. monotone

Is there anything else that might interest me?

Also, this would not be considered surjective right:
f: [0,inf) -> R, f(x)=x^2
Correct, not surjective.
 

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
So far with proving that a function is injective I know of two methods:

1. f(x)=f(y) <=> x=y
2. monotone

Is there anything else that might interest me?

Also, this would not be considered surjective right:
f: [0,inf) -> R, f(x)=x^2
It would be surjective if the codomain was restricted, but given it isn't, it's not surjective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top