Mistake Master

Using the Second Derivative Test to Determine Extrema AB & BC

If $f'(c) = 0$, then $f''(c) > 0$ makes $f(c)$ a relative minimum and $f''(c) < 0$ makes it a relative maximum: a horizontal tangent inside a bowl is the bottom of the bowl. If $f''(c) = 0$ the test is inconclusive and returns nothing at all. That is not a technicality: $x^{4}$, $-x^{4}$ and $x^{3}$ all have $f'(0) = 0$ and $f''(0) = 0$, and they have a minimum, a maximum, and no extremum respectively, so every input the test reads is identical while the answers exhaust the possibilities.

The test also requires $f'(c)$ to be zero rather than merely critical, so it says nothing at the corner of $|x|$, where the First Derivative Test gives a minimum immediately. Inflection points obey a parallel rule: $f''$ must change sign, and vanishing is neither necessary nor sufficient. $x^{4}$ has $f''(0) = 0$ and no inflection point, $x^{1/3}$ has no $f''(0)$ at all and does have one, and $\frac{1}{x}$ changes concavity across a point that is not in its domain. Report an inflection as a point, with its $y$-coordinate taken from $f$.

ALL THREE HAVE f′(0) = 0 AND f″(0) = 0. THE VERDICTS ARE DIFFERENT. f = x⁴ f = −x⁴ f = x³ f′(0) = 0 f′(0) = 0 f′(0) = 0 f″(0) = 0 f″(0) = 0 f″(0) = 0 RELATIVE MINIMUM RELATIVE MAXIMUM NEITHER SO f″(c) = 0 IS NOT AN ANSWER. IT IS THE TEST DECLINING TO ANSWER, AND THE FIRST DERIVATIVE TEST HAS TO BE RUN INSTEAD.
Every number the Second Derivative Test reads is the same in all three panels. The three verdicts exhaust the possibilities.
AN INFLECTION POINT NEEDS f″ TO CHANGE SIGN, NOT MERELY TO VANISH. f = x³ f = x⁴ f = x^(1/3) f″ < 0 f″ > 0 f″ > 0 f″ > 0 f″ > 0 f″ < 0 INFLECTION NOT AN INFLECTION INFLECTION SIGN CHANGES NO SIGN CHANGE f″ UNDEFINED THE MIDDLE ONE HAS f″(0) = 0 AND NO INFLECTION. THE RIGHT ONE HAS NO f″(0) AT ALL AND IS AN INFLECTION POINT. VANISHING IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR ENOUGH.
Roots of the second derivative are candidates in exactly the way that critical points are candidates. The sign strip is what settles each one.

The work

3 ways in · any order
Lesson
Using the Second Derivative Test to Determine Extrema

States the Second Derivative Test with its real hypothesis, works it on an exponential product, and then puts three functions with identical first and second derivative data side by side to show that a zero second derivative is a refusal rather than a verdict. Closes on what an inflection point requires, where vanishing is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Skill check · 10 scenarios
Diagnostic
10-item topic check

Ten items spanning the two failure modes of this topic: drawing a conclusion from the Second Derivative Test where it is inconclusive or does not apply at all, and reporting an inflection point at every root of the second derivative without checking that the concavity changed.

Not yet available · 10 items
Targeted Practice
Drill a single misconception

Pick one of the failure modes you missed and drill it on its own. The round is adaptive: two correct in a row clears the misconception and moves you to the next.

Take the diagnostic to identify your misconceptions