Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Why can't we conclude the extrema property of a function from its quadratic approximation when the discriminant is zero?

+5
−0

Suppose $f:\mathbf{R}^2\to\mathbf{R}$ is a smooth function and $P=(0,0)$ is a critical point of $f$. The second-derivative test is inconclusive when the discriminant at $P$ is zero: $$f_{xx}(0,0)f_{yy}(0,0)-(f_{xy}(0,0))^2=0\ .$$

For simplicity, assume further that $f(0,0)=0$ and $f_{xx}(0,0)\ne 0$. Then the quadratic approximation of $f$ at $P$ is of the form

\begin{align} g(x,y) =ax^2+bxy+cy^2=a\left[ (x+\frac{b}{2a}y)^2+(\frac{D}{4a^2})y^2\right], \end{align} where $D=4ac-b^2$. In the case when $D\ne 0$, $f$ and $g$ have the same property at $P$ by the second-derivative test.

But when $D=0$, we can no longer conclude the property of $f$ at $P$ from that of $g$ unless $f(x,y)=g(x,y)=a(x+\frac{b}{2a}y)^2$, where $g$ has a local min (resp. max) at $P$ when $a>0$ (resp. $a<0$). I would like to understand why.

Question: why can we no longer conclude the local min/max property for $f$ from $g$ when $D=0$?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

1 answer

+4
−0

You've basically walked right up to the explanation. The second-order approximation you describe, when $D = 0$, is

$$g(x, y) = a\left(x + \frac{b}{2a}y\right)^2$$

Define $z = x + \frac{b}{2a}y$, and we have $g(x, y) = g(z) = az^2$.

This means that $g$ describes a function that really only has one independent variable, a linear combination of $x$ and $y$. It looks like a parabola dragged along a line, and every point in the path of the vertex of the parabola is an extremum.

But since $g$ is only a second-order approximation to $f$, higher-order effects in $f$ may curve the path of the vertex with or against the curvature of the parabola, which will determine whether the critical point is an extremum or a saddle point. This isn't an issue when $D \neq 0$, because then the second-order effects will dominate the higher-order effects and knowing the behavior of $g$ near the critical point is sufficient.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »