• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16
  17. 17
    17
  18. 18
    18
  19. 19
    19
  20. 20
    20
  21. 21
    21
  22. 22
    22
  23. 23
    23
  24. 24
    24
  25. 25
    25

The Gradient Function

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Jamie Warner 11M

 The Gradient Function

  Aim: To find the gradient function of curves of the form y=axn. To begin with, I should investigate how the gradient changes, in relation to the value of x. Following this, I plan to expand my investigation to see how the gradient changes, and as a result how a changes in relation to this.

Method:

 At the very start of the investigation, I shall investigate the gradient at the values of y=xn. To start with, I shall put the results in a table, but later on, as I attempt to find the gradient through advanced methods, a table may be unnecessary. As I plot the values of y=x2, this should allow me to plot a line of best fit and analyze, and otherwise evaluate, the relationship between the gradient and x in this equation.

I have begun with n=2. After analyzing this, I shall carry on using a constant value of “a” until further on in the investigation, and keep on increasing n by 1 each time. I shall plot on the graphs the relative x values and determine a gradient between n and the gradients. Perhaps further on in the investigation, I shall modify the value of a, and perhaps make n a fractional or negative power.

Method to find the gradient:

 These methods would perhaps be better if I demonstrated them using an example, so I will illustrate this using y=x2.

image00.png

This is the graph of y=x2. I will find out the gradient of this curve, by using the three methods – drawing a tangent to the curve, using an increment method, and proving it via Binomial Expansion.

...read more.

Middle

4.001

1.414301942

0.125172

2

1.189207

2.1

1.203801344

0.175152

2

1.189207

2.01

1.190690845

0.178385

2

1.189207

2.001

1.189355738

0.178718

1

1

1.1

1.024113689

0.241137

1

1

1.01

1.002490679

0.249068

1

1

1.001

1.000249906

0.249906

x

X 0.25

Gradient

1

1

0.25

  2

1.414214

0.148651

3

1.732051

0.109673

4

2

0.088388

Like before, these data are very hard to work with and I cannot find a general pattern by looking at the gradients – they are not whole numbers. This will again, however, support the gradient function I will come up with using binomial expansion.

Therefore, this proves my prediction was correct, and works with the rule nx n-1. I will now test this formula with each relevant datum in the table.

x

X 0.25

Gradient

   1

1

0.25

  2

1.414214

0.148651

3

1.732051

0.109673

4

2

0.088388

Gradient

                                  1/4x¾

0.25

0.25

0.148651

0.148651

0.109673

0.109673

0.088388

0.088388

These are exactly the same. Therefore this proves that all positive values of n in the equation nx n-1 apply to this formula. After I try to prove negative powers are correct, I shall thoroughly investigate, in depth, the overall gradient function for the curves y =ax n-1, where “a” is not constant.

But for now, however, I shall investigate negative values of n. The value of n I will choose is -1, or y= 1/x.

y = x-1

x

y

Second point x

second point y

gradient

3

0.333333

3.1

0.322580645

0.104058

3

0.333333

3.01

0.332225914

0.110374

3

0.333333

3.001

0.333222259

0.111037

4

0.25

4.1

0.243902439

0.059488

4

0.25

4.01

0.249376559

0.062189

4

0.25

4.001

0.249937516

0.062469

2

0.5

2.1

0.476190476

0.226757

2

0.5

2.01

0.497512438

0.247519

2

0.5

2.001

0.499750125

0.24975

1

1

1.1

0.909090909

0.826446

1

1

1.01

0.99009901

0.980296

1

1

1.001

0.999000999

0.998003

x

x-1

Gradient

1

1

-1

2

0.5

-0.25

3

0.333333

-0.111111111

4

0.25

-0.0625

I predict that the gradient function for when n=-1 = -x -2, in correspondence to the formula nx n-1. I can tell whether these data do in fact agree with this gradient function, but I shall binomially expand this to verify this is the case:

    1           .      x            -   x+h       .     1                  =              x             -         (x + h)

 x + h               x                x+h             x                               x(x+h)                  x(x+h)

                     x    +    h     -   x                                                                  h

=      x – (x+h)   =     -h           =      -1         =   -1         = -1x-2.

         hx(x+h)       hx(x+h)           x(x+0)*        x2

*h tends to 0.

Voila, this gradient function is in accordance with nx n-1. By getting this far, I have nearly convinced myself that all values work, whether they are integers or not, or positive or not. However, thus far I have not perhaps produced enough evidence to support this theory, and therefore I shall attempt to prove one last n value in this section, where n=-2. Since I am nearly convinced that this formula is proven for any value, where “a” is a constant 1, I will just binomially prove y = x -2.

In accordance to the formula nx n-1, I predict that the gradient function for this = -2x-3.

y=x-2.

    1           .        x²         -   (x+h)²       .     1*                  =     x²             -      (x²+2hx+h²)**

 (x + h) ²            x²              (x+h)²             x²                x²(x²+2hx+h²)       x²(x²+2hx+h²)

                     x    +    h     -   x                                                                  h

=    x²   -   (x²+2hx+h²)    = -2hx – h²     =    -2x – h        =     -2 – h/x         = -2 – 0/x

        hx²(x²+2hx+h²)     hx²(x²+2hx+h²) x²(x²+2hx+h²)   x(x²+2hx+h²)   x(x²+((2)(0x))+0²)

=        -2              = -2x-3    -  here we assume x, is not 0.

         x-3

* IN all the past equations I have rationalized the numerator to make them easier to work with and thus solve. Otherwise, they are thus irrational and impossible to solve, with all the knowledge of this topic I possess.

** h tends to 0.

I now move onto the second and final section of this piece of coursework – where we now change a new variable in this investigation - the value of a. I will try to combine this with different value of n, to see how it affects the end result.

axn

 In this section, I will change the values of a by an increase of 1 in each example, and furthermore do the same for the value of n. While it is bad practice to change 2 variables at once as a rule, I have found the effect the changing n in the previous investigation, so is therefore valid. Firstly, I shall try to investigate 2x², and if successful, move onto greater values of a.

y=2x²

x

y

second value x

second value y

gradient

4

32

4.1

33.62

16.4

4

32

4.01

32.1602

16.04

4

32

4.001

32.016002

16.004

3

18

3.1

19.22

12.4

3

18

3.01

18.1202

12.04

3

18

3.001

18.012002

12.004

2

8

2.1

8.82

8.4

2

8

2.01

8.0802

8.04

2

8

2.001

8.008002

8.004

1

2

1.1

2.42

4.4

1

2

1.01

2.0402

4.04

1

2

1.001

2.004002

4.004

x

x2

2x2

gradient

1

1

2

4

2

4

8

8

3

9

18

12

4

16

32

16

The gradient here is equal to 4x – I can see this by investigating the values of x, as compared to the gradient. I predict that the gradient for 5 will be 20. This can be shown here:

5

25

50

20

My hypothesis is correct. It will be also be useful to prove this binomially, however:

2(x+h) ² - 2x²    = 2(x²+h²+2hx) – 2x²   =   2x²+2h²+4hx -2x² = 2h²+4hx

  x + h – x                      h                                       h                         h      

2h + 4x = ((2)(0)) +4x  = 4x

Therefore the gradient function is correct. Now, I will change the value of n by 1 to see whether the same rule applies with different values of “a” and n.

y = 2x3

x

y

second value x

second value y

gradient

4

128

4.1

137.842

100.86

4

128

4.01

128.962402

96.4806

4

128

4.001

128.096024

96.04801

3

54

3.1

59.582

57.66

3

54

3.01

54.541802

54.3606

3

54

3.001

54.054018

54.03601

2

16

2.1

18.522

26.46

2

16

2.01

16.241202

24.2406

2

16

2.001

16.024012

24.02401

1

2

1.1

2.662

7.26

1

2

1.01

2.060602

6.1206

1

2

1.001

2.006006002

6.012006

x

x3

2x3

gradient

1

1

2

6

2

8

16

24

3

27

54

54

4

64

128

96

After looking through each value, I have observed a pattern. I have noticed that the gradient is always equal to 6x². I predict that when x = 5, the gradient will be equal to 150.

5

125

250

150

This has proved my hypothesis correct. Now, again I shall prove this binomially:

2(x+h) ³ - 2x³    = 2(x³ +3x²h + 3h²x+h³) – 2x³   =    2x³ + 6x²h + 6h²x +h³ - 2x³

  x + h – x                                h                                              h                        

= 6x²h + 6h²x +h³   = 6x² + 6hx + h² = 6x² + (6)(0x) + 0² = 6x²

             h        

I need not explain this any further. I will now investigate 2x4, and then try to find a general pattern for all the gradients of where a=2.    

x

y

second value x

second value y

gradient

4

512

4.1

565.1522

551.368

4

512

4.01

517.139232

515.8496

4

512

4.001

512.512192

512.3841

3

162

3.1

184.7042

238.328

3

162

3.01

164.170824

218.1672

3

162

3.001

162.216108

216.2161

2

32

2.1

38.8962

74.088

2

32

2.01

32.64481602

64.96481

2

32

2.001

32.06404802

64.09605

1

2

1.1

2.9282

10.648

1

2

1.01

2.08120802

8.242408

1

2

1.001

2.008012008

8.024024

x

x4

2x4

gradient

1

1

2

8

2

16

32

64

3

81

162

216

4

256

512

512

After looking through each value, I have observed a pattern. I have noticed that the gradient is always equal to 8x³. I predict that when x = 5, the gradient will be equal to 1000.

5

625

1250

1000

My theory was correct. I shall now try and binomially prove this…

2(x+h)4 – 2x4                   = 2(x4 + h4 +4hx³ + 6x²h² + 4xh³) - 2x4    =  

 x + h – x                                                        h

2x4 + 2h4 +8hx³ + 12x²h² + 8xh³ - 2x4 =     2h4 +8hx³ + 12x²h² + 8xh³

                                 h                                                          h

=    2h³ + 8x³ + 12x²h + 8xh³

After doing this so many times, I can tell that every term containing an h will disappear. The one exception to this = 8x³. This is the answer I had previously predicted, and therefore my theory was correct.

I have observed a pattern using these results. I have noticed that when a =2, if you multiply this through by the power, and subtract 1 from the power, you get the gradient function.

In other words = 2(nxn-1). This may apply to every value of a, thus giving us the overall gradient function, but I must find far more evidence than one solitary a value to give it any meaning.

If this is the case, however, I think that when the co-efficient is 3, the whole gradient will be 3(nxn-1). I shall try and investigate this.

3x²

x

y

second value x

second value y

gradient

4

48

4.1

50.43

24.6

4

48

4.01

48.2403

24.06

4

48

4.001

48.024003

24.006

3

27

3.1

28.83

18.6

3

27

3.01

27.1803

18.06

3

27

3.001

27.018003

18.006

2

12

2.1

13.23

12.6

2

12

2.01

12.1203

12.06

2

12

2.001

12.012003

12.006

1

3

1.1

3.63

6.6

1

3

1.01

3.0603

6.06

1

3

1.001

3.006003

6.006

x

x2

3x2

gradient

1

1

3

6

2

4

12

12

3

9

27

18

4

16

48

24

After looking through each value, I have observed a pattern. I have noticed that the gradient is always equal to 6x. I predict that when x = 5, the gradient will be equal to 30.

5

25

75

30

The gradient here is 30, so therefore I was correct. Now, to the binomial proof…

3(x+h) ² - 3x²         = 3(x² + 2hx + h²) - 3x²    = 3x² + 6hx + 3h² - 3x²=   6hx + 3h²

    x +h-x                             h                                          h                              h

=    6x + 3h = 6x

axn value

gradient function

x2

2x

2x2

4x

3x2

6x

...read more.

Conclusion

n + lxm.

2x² + 3x5

2(x+h)² -2x²       +  3(x+h)5 – 3x5      =  

  (x+h) – x                  (x+h) – x

2(x²+ 2hx + h²) – 2x²  + 3(x5 + 5x4h + 10x³h² + 10x²h² + 5xh4 +h5) – 3x5

            h                                                            h

= 2x² + 4hx + 2h² - 2x²    +    3x^5 + 15x4(h) + 30x³h² + 30x²h² + 15xh4 +h5 – 3x5

                h                                                                h

=   (4x + 2h) + (15x4 + 30x³h + 30x²h + 15xh3 +h4) = 4x + 15x4

= x (4 + 15x^3)

This seems to follow the same pattern as the previous investigation; each term follows the correct pattern in accordance with naxn-1 (2x² and 3x5 have the respective gradient functions of 4x and 15x4).  I will need to try this, however, with 2 more cases, to find a respective pattern between all of them.

With the next method, I shall use solely the table/increment method to find respective gradients. It is perhaps not a preferred method to algebraic proof. However, I shall need to do this to see whether it is a better method.

3x3 + 2x3

x

y

second value x

second value y

gradient

4

192

4.1

206.763

151.29

4

192

4.01

193.443603

144.7209

4

192

4.001

192.144036

144.072

3

81

3.1

89.373

86.49

3

81

3.01

81.812703

81.5409

3

81

3.001

81.081027

81.05401

2

24

2.1

27.783

39.69

2

24

2.01

24.361803

36.3609

2

24

2.001

24.036018

36.03601

1

3

1.1

3.993

10.89

1

3

1.01

3.090903

9.1809

1

3

1.001

3.009009003

9.018009

x

y

second value x

second value y

gradient

4

128

4.1

137.842

100.86

4

128

4.01

128.962402

96.4806

4

128

4.001

128.096024

96.04801

3

54

3.1

59.582

57.66

3

54

3.01

54.541802

54.3606

3

54

3.001

54.054018

54.03601

2

16

2.1

18.522

26.46

2

16

2.01

16.241202

24.2406

2

16

2.001

16.024012

24.02401

1

2

1.1

2.662

7.26

1

2

1.01

2.060602

6.1206

1

2

1.001

2.006006002

6.012006

Gradient + Gradient =

Gradient  3x3 + Gradient 2x3

Gradient (3x3)

Gradient (2x3)

 a + b

151.29

100.86

252.15

144.7209

96.4806

241.2015

144.072

96.04801

240.12001

86.49

57.66

144.15

81.5409

54.3606

135.9015

81.05401

54.03601

135.09002

39.69

26.46

66.15

36.3609

24.2406

60.6015

36.03601

24.02401

60.06002

10.89

7.26

18.15

9.1809

6.1206

15.3015

9.018009

6.012006

15.030015

From these results, I can figure out that the overall gradient function of each value added together is :

9x2 + 6x2 = x(9x + 6x)

This proves quite a clear pattern. Now it is clear that both functions correspond to the gradient function nax^n-1. However, the formula

naxn-1 + naxn-1 is not valid : this is because we are assuming that the a and x values are not equal to each other. Therefore, I shall use a different letter to use in these equations. I shall substitute “n” with “m” and “a” with “l”. Therefore the formula for adding powers together is :

nxn + lxm = naxn-1 + lmxm-1.

This is the overall formula for working out the basic functions of any curve of axn + lxm. If the powers are being subtracted from each other, the + is simply replaced by a -.

Now I have proved this, the coursework is complete.

...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Core & Pure Mathematics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

5 star(s)

Generally an excellent piece of work with some sophisticated results. A good conversational style describes clearly why he is following particular lines of investigation.

Marked by teacher Mick Macve 18/03/2012

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Core & Pure Mathematics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    C3 Coursework - different methods of solving equations.

    5 star(s)

    and (5 and 6). So we draw a tangent at x=-1 point on the graph. To do this, we need to find the gradient at that point. To get this, we need to find Y'. When we substitute in x = -1, we get .

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Estimate a consumption function for the UK economy explaining the economic theory and statistical ...

    3 star(s)

    They are just positive. They are all satisfying the conditions of absolute income and support Keynesian view. However, the coefficients are not good enough to decide whether this equation is an acceptable description of what has happened to the consumption.

  1. Numerical Methods Coursework

    (See page 6 and 7) Use of technology Microsoft excel was used to devise my spreadsheets. Excel can only handle decimals accurately up to 15 decimal places. My calculation was made to 15 decimals places. Excel was used because it made my work easier, this because you don't need to

  2. MEI numerical Methods

    To use fix point iteration we do rearrange f(x) = 0, to G(x) = x. We then do G(x1), and so on; this is called a recurrence relation. By doing this, most of the time the sequence gets closer to the final answer thus it converges.

  1. OCR MEI C3 Coursework - Numerical Methods

    Finding the root using Newton-Raphson f'(x)=5x4-4 xn F(xn) f'(xn) x1 -2 -21 76 x2 -1.72368 -5.32084 40.1368 x3 -1.59112 -0.83341 28.0463 x4 -1.56140 -0.03491 25.71855 x5 -1.56004 -7E-05 25.61534 x6 -1.56004 -2.8E-10 25.61513 -1.56004 (5d.p.) is therefore a root of f(x)=0.

  2. C3 Coursework: Numerical Methods

    As the Newton Raphson method relies on the gradient of the points it is not possible to use the Newton Raphson method the find the roots of the equation y=log(x+3)-x. I shall now attempt to use the Newton Raphson formula to find the roots of the equation.

  1. Numerical solutions of equations

    I have rightly guessed, there is no change of sign according to my calculations above. This is because the equation has an even power in it. Therefore, the Decimal Search method has failed to find the root of (1.55x+3.4)4=0. Solving 0=x4+x-1 using the "Newton-Raphson" method As stated above, the equation I will use for the "Newton-Raphson" method is x4+x-1=0.

  2. C3 COURSEWORK - comparing methods of solving functions

    y= x³+3x²â3 The fact is that f (0) is negative and f (1) is positive, which tells us that the graph must cross along the x axis between 0 and 1. Hence there must be a root in the range [0, 1] F (0.87939)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work