What we do: differentiate each coordinate separately with respect to t.
x˙=dtd(3t+1)=3 — the 3t has slope 3, the constant 1 contributes nothing.
y˙=dtd(t2−4)=2t — power rule; the −4 vanishes.
Why divide: slope is vertical-speed over horizontal-speed (the shared dt cancels):
dxdy=x˙y˙=32t.
Recall Solution
dx2d2y means "differentiate dxdywith respect to x, not t," so you must re-apply the parametric trick to x˙y˙, producing a quotient-rule numerator over a denominator of ==x˙3== — the cube, not x¨.
Tool: the boxed second-derivative formula. We already have x˙=2t,y˙=3t2. Now:
x¨=2, y¨=6t.
Plug in:
dx2d2y=x˙3y¨x˙−y˙x¨=(2t)3(6t)(2t)−(3t2)(2)=8t312t2−6t2=8t36t2=4t3.Cross-check via the "differentiate dy/dx then divide" route:dxdy=23t, so dtd(23t)=23; divide by x˙=2t: 2t3/2=4t3. ✓ Same answer.
Recall Solution
x˙=−Rsint, y˙=Rcost.
dxdy=−RsintRcost=−cott.The R cancels — a bigger circle has the same slope at the same angle.
At t=π/6: −cot(π/6)=−3≈−1.732. (Independent of R, so R=2 doesn't change it.)
t=0: zero → an inflection point where concavity flips, at the origin.
Recall Solution
x˙=1−cost,y˙=sint, so dxdy=1−costsint.
At t=π/2: 1−cos(π/2)sin(π/2)=1−01=1.
Limit t→0+: both top and bottom →0 (00). Using the small-angle pictures, sint≈t and 1−cost≈2t2, so dxdy≈t2/2t=t2→+∞. The cycloid rises with a vertical tangent at each cusp (where the wheel touches the ground) — the curve comes into the cusp straight up.
Step 1 — the point.x=2cos4π=2⋅22=2; y=3sin4π=232.
Step 2 — the slope (see Tangents and normals).
x˙=−2sint,y˙=3cost, so dxdy=−2sint3cost=−23cott.
At t=π/4, cot(π/4)=1, so m=−23.
Step 3 — the line through (2,232) with slope −23:
y−232=−23(x−2)⇒y=−23x+232+232=−23x+32.
So m=−23,c=32≈4.243.
(a) Horizontal (y˙=0,x˙=0): 3(t2−1)=0⇒t=±1; both have x˙=±2=0. ✓
(b) Vertical (x˙=0,y˙=0): 2t=0⇒t=0; there y˙=−3=0. ✓ Vertical tangent at the origin-side point (0,0).
(c) Concavity at t=1. Need dx2d2y: x¨=2,y¨=6t.
dx2d2y=(2t)3(6t)(2t)−3(t2−1)(2)=8t312t2−6t2+6=8t36t2+6=4t33(t2+1).
At t=1: 43(2)=23>0 → concave up.
Step 1 — restate the target.dx2d2y=dxd(dxdy) — differentiate the slope with respect to x.
Step 2 — we only know t-derivatives, so apply the parametric trick to the function g=dxdy=x˙y˙:
dxd(g)=dx/dtdg/dt=x˙1⋅dtd(x˙y˙).Step 3 — quotient rule on x˙y˙ (top' · bottom − top · bottom', over bottom²):
dtd(x˙y˙)=x˙2y¨x˙−y˙x¨.Step 4 — combine (multiply by the x˙1 from Step 2):
dx2d2y=x˙1⋅x˙2y¨x˙−y˙x¨=x˙3y¨x˙−y˙x¨.■
The x˙2 from the quotient rule times the extra x˙ from Step 2 is exactly where the cube is born.
Recall Solution
Note the curve is y=(et)2=x2, so we know the true answer must be dx2d2y=2.
(c) Disagreement: the correct answer is the constant 2; the naive one is 4x, which even changes with t. They coincide nowhere except4x=2⇒x=21, a coincidence at a single point — proof the naive formula is genuinely wrong.
Recall Solution
Original (x=t,y=t2): x˙=1,y˙=2t, so dxdy=2t=2x.Reparametrized (x=u3,y=u6): here dots mean d/du.
x˙=3u2,y˙=6u5.
dxdy=3u26u5=2u3.
But x=u3, so 2u3=2x.Identical. ✓
The parameter is a scaffold; the curve and its slope are the real objects. This is the deep reason the shared dt (or du) cancels — a lesson that carries into all Parametric curves.