Differentiation finds one of its greatest powers in optimisation; that is maximising or minimising some constrained quantity.
Consider the graph of below with minimum point
.

Since the tangent to the curve at is horizontal, it has a gradient of zero. That is,
.
Theorem 1 (Zero Derivative Condition). If is a local minimum or local maximum, then
. Denoting
,
Proof. We illustrate the proof for the local minimum case.

Denote and
for sufficiently small
. The rough idea is that using the diagram,
so that by taking ,
For more rigorous details, see this post.
Example 1. Calculate the turning points of the graph of .
Solution. To determine the turning points, we use the zero derivative condition:
We first evaluate the left-hand side:
Hence, we solve the equation
And we resolve two cases:
- At
,
.
- At
,
.
Therefore, the two turning points have coordinates ,
.
Remark 1. Using software, the graph of is given as follows.

Hence, the power of calculus arises in calculating the turning points even without technology or visual intuition.
Example 2. Given constants with
, show that the graph
has two distinct stationary points if and only if .
Solution. We take the first derivative:
By the zero derivative condition, the graph has two distinct stationary points if and only if the equation has two real and distinct roots. Now the equation
has two real and distinct roots if and only if its discriminant is positive:
Each step holds bi-directionally so the proof holds.
Suppose now we know that . How do we know what kind of turning point
is? Sadly, there is a third situation in which
.

By considering the graph above, there are three instances in which occurs:
: at a local maximum,
: at a stationary point of inflection,
: at a local minimum.
How do we distinguish between these three types? Graphically, but expressed in equations.
Theorem 2 (First Derivative Test). Suppose . For small
, define
and
. Suppose
and
. Then
is a:
- local minimum if
and
,
- local maximum if
and
,
- stationary point of inflection if
.
Proof. The diagram above illustrates all three scenarios. For details, see this post.
Example 3. Determine the nature of the turning points calculated in Example 1.
It turns out that we can take a short-cut to Theorem 1 by considering the second derivative, defined by the derivative of the first derivative:
For alternate notation, suppose , then
In turn, we have
Theorem 3 (Second Derivative Test). Suppose . Then
is a:
- local minimum if
,
- local maximum if
.
If , no conclusion can be made.
Proof Sketch. In the case of a local minimum,
Since measures the gradient of
, and
is increasing from negative to positive,
. The local maximum case follows similarly. For rigour and detail, see this post.
Example 4. Calculate the stationary points of the graph ,
, and determine their nature.
Solution. To obtain the stationary points of the graph, we use the zero derivative condition
Evaluating the left-hand side,
Therefore, we solve the equation
Now and
. Therefore, the stationary (not necessarily turning!) points are given by
and
.
To determine their nature, we use the second derivative test:
Using the second derivative test,
Therefore, is a local minimum while
is a local maximum.
Example 5. The diagram below shows the graphs of
respectively.

For each graph, compute and
at
. What do you notice?
Solution. For the first graph,
Therefore,
For the first graph,
Therefore,
Similarly, in the case ,
Remark 2. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that tells us that
is a stationary point, but
does not give us any meaningful information about the nature of
. The latter could occur in all three types of stationary points.
Now, we can talk about constrained optimisation.
Example 6. Determine the smallest perimeter for a rectangle with area units².
Solution. Sketch the rectangle as follows.

Since , we have
. Hence the rectangle has a total perimeter of
Since ,
. Hence,
is a local minimum if and only if
is a local minimum. By Example 4,
is a local minimum. Therefore,
is a local minimum.
In particular, the smallest perimeter achieved is units², when
, i.e. the rectangle is a square with side length
unit.
Remark 3. Strictly speaking, we need to do more work to show that is a global minimum. However, in the context of high school mathematics, most problems uses expressions that do not need this extra technicality.
Example 7. Determine the smallest surface area for a closed cylinder with volume units³.
Solution. Sketch the cylinder as follows.

Here, . Recalling the volume of a cylinder,
The surface area is made up of two circles with area
each and one curved surface with area
. Hence,
To use the zero derivative condition, we first calculate :
Hence, we set :
Therefore, units. For the second derivative test, we calculate the second derivative:
whenever . By the second derivative test,
yields a local maximum for
:
While there are many possible applications of optimisation, especially in profit-maximisation, we want to switch gears and discuss differentiation’s shadow brother—integration. This we will computationally discuss next time.
For now, let’s resolve an interesting generalisation of the questions we solved just now.
Example 8. For positive constants , use calculus to show that
with equality if and only if .
Solution. Define the function for
. Taking derivatives, we leave it as an exercise to check that
By the zero derivative condition,
Since ,
. By the second derivative test,
yields a local minimum at
:
In particular, at ,
Dividing by on both sides,
Equality holds if and only if .
Remark 4. The left-hand side is known as the arithmetic mean (AM) of
. The right-hand side
is known as the geometric mean (GM) of
. Therefore, this result is known as the AM-GM inequality.
Remark 5. An alternative proof from just algebra arises from expanding the left-hand side of the not-so-trivial inequality
—Joel Kindiak, 16 Jan 26, 1215H
Leave a comment