Amodel used for the yield y of an agricultural crop as a function of the nitrogen level n in the soil (measured in appropriate units) is y = kn 9 + n2 where k is a positive constant. what nitrogen level gives the best yield?

The Nitrogen level that will give the best yield is ; 3

The correct written function/model is ;

To determine the best yield we will have to determine the maximum yield of the model above.  

Maximum yield is ( y' = 0 )

Determine y' ( first derivative ) using the quotient rule

 = 0

Resolving the rule above

  = 0   given that K is a positive constant

Express the numerator as  = 0

∴

factoring the equation above

(3 - N) (3 + N) = 0     given that  k ≠ 0 and is positive value

Therefore the Nitrogen levels ( N ) = 3  ( we take only the positive value )

Hence we can conclude that The Nitrogen level that will give the best yield is ; 3

Learn more : link

Explanation:

The model written correctly is:

This is a mathematical question, instead of a chemistry question, and you should use calculus to find the nitrogen level that gives the best yield, since this is an optimization problem.

The best yield is the maximum yield, and the maximum, provided that it exists, is found using the first derivative and making it equal to zero: Y' = 0

To find Y' you must use the quotient rule.

Now make Y' = 0

         9k - kN² = 0

         9 - N² = 0 ⇒ (3 - N) (3 + N) = 0

         ⇒ 3 - N = 0 or 3 + N = 0 ⇒ N = 3 or N = -3.

Since N is nitrogen level, it cannot be negative and the only valid answer is N = 3.

You can prove that it is a maximum (instead of a minimum) finding the second derivative or testing some points around 3 (e.g. 2.5 and 3.5).

when—without warning—something provokes your anger, you may struggle not to succumb to it. since what typically makes you mad is feeling powerless in the face of what seems unfair, your anger is mostly an attempt at a “quick fix” to right the balance. it’s as though you’re raising a fist in protest, proclaiming that you’re not going to capitulate to such injustice.

there are, however, a multitude of problems related to this immediate, push-back reaction of anger. and probably the key one is that almost never does it resolve the issue that gave rise to it. such reactive anger is probably best understood as self-defeating. as david burns, the author of the seminal self- book feeling good, observes: if realistically, acting on your anger is to make any sense, it needs to meet two criteria—which, in almost every case, is frankly impossible. that is, your anger must:

be directed toward a person who has intentionally (and needlessly) behaved in a hurtful way toward you; and

be beneficial or advantageous to you (i.e., assist you in achieving a desired goal).

i think you’ll agree that only rarely can you claim that your anger is both warranted and , whether to yourself or the relationship.

so let me offer you a two-step alternative to abandoning your better judgment and giving in to the temptation of anger—one that should neutralize your anger in seconds. or, when you’re really angry, in minutes.

but keep in mind that you must really want to execute these steps, be sufficiently motivated to perform them. which means overcoming more unconscious resistance than you might ever have imagined. because there are many immediate “advantages” of anger that can interfere with your resolve, i’ll suggest a few of them that might interfere with your employing this powerful method to rid yourself of counter-productive anger.

explanation: