ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE Mathematics => VCE Mathematics/Science/Technology => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE Mathematical Methods CAS => Topic started by: Damo17 on December 11, 2008, 03:49:13 pm
-
Differentiate with respect to x:
})
Tried it but unsure of what to let u equal.
-
Let
, so then
-
What do you mean what to let 'u' equal? Hopefully you're not confusing diff with anti-diff here...normally I'd do this without having to define anything and just go straight for the chain rule in 1 line, but if you must, let cos(x+1) be u then and then chain rule it.
-
Let
})

(You can use chain rule to find this, if you can't see it)

-
thanks all, i got it now.
-
What do you mean what to let 'u' equal? Hopefully you're not confusing diff with anti-diff here...normally I'd do this without having to define anything and just go straight for the chain rule in 1 line, but if you must, let cos(x+1) be u then and then chain rule it.
I would normally do that but my teacher has given us questions that we have to use the long way and questions to do it the quick way.
-
Another question using the product rule.
Differentiate:
^2(x+5)^2)
I can do most of it but hit a road block. :(
-
Let
and ^2)
and )
(x+5)^2 + 2(x+5)(x^2-1)^2)
(x+5)[2x(x+5) + (x^2-1)])
-
^
Thanks coblin,
I forgot to change the 4x to 2x!!
-
What do you mean what to let 'u' equal? Hopefully you're not confusing diff with anti-diff here...normally I'd do this without having to define anything and just go straight for the chain rule in 1 line, but if you must, let cos(x+1) be u then and then chain rule it.
Integration by u-substitution isn't in Methods anyway [as in the linear substitution form, which is in Specialist], whereas chain rule by this technique is in almost all the textbooks. (And I agree, I don't think the latter helps much!)
-
Ahah yeh didn't realise it was in the methods board; woops.
-
Damo still need to be careful about it though, assuming if he is doing Spesh and MUEP Math next year =)
you should learn to do the Chain Rule without using a u-substitution. Whilst it doesn't change the answer, it can over-complicate things and make your workings unnecessarily big, it is almost necessary when you are in spesh and uni-math unless you can fit a lot of workings in a small space.
-
Damo still need to be careful about it though, assuming if he is doing Spesh and MUEP Math next year =)
you should learn to do the Chain Rule without using a u-substitution. Whilst it doesn't change the answer, it can over-complicate things and make your workings unnecessarily big, it is almost necessary when you are in spesh and uni-math unless you can fit a lot of workings in a small space.
Thanks for the advice Mao.
I can do most question without u-substitution but there are a few that I struggle to do it that way so I try it the long way.
-
Another one I'm stuck on.
Differentiate:
^{-3})
This is what I have done so far:


^{-3})
^{-4})

^{-4} + (1-6x)^{-3}\cdot 2x)
^{-4} + 2x(1-6x)^{-3})
I think it is correct so far but I don't know where to go from here. Any help/explanation would be greatly appreciated.
-
Take out a common factor
-
The answer in the back of the book says:
^4})
Which even with taking out the common factor I don't know how they get that.
Am I missing something really stupid?
-
Lowest common denominator?
-
I'm still stuck, could someone show some working out. Please. :)
-
I'm lazy with latex, but from the last step previously, take out a factor of
, and then just change the power of -4 to make it go to the denominator. After that, a bit of simplifying should get you to your answer.
-
I'm lazy with latex, but from the last step previously, take out a factor of
, and then just change the power of -4 to make it go to the denominator. After that, a bit of simplifying should get you to your answer.
How can you take out
when there aren't two of them?
I am sorry if I am getting a bit annoying but I still don't understand.
-
Stuff LaTex :P It takes me 30 seconds to get it to computer + host.
Here's how I did it.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/2ev6xi1.png)
-
^
thanks sooo much. I get it now (finally). Thanks a million. :smitten: :smitten:
-
Another question:
Differentiate: 
This is what I have so far:


^\frac{-1}{2}}{2(x+1)})
Where do I go from here?
-
Another question:
Differentiate: 
This is what I have so far:


})
Where do I go from here?
I just want to point out that
, and not 
Then:
-
Another question:
Differentiate: 
This is what I have so far:


})
Where do I go from here?
I just want to point out that
, and not 
Yeah I know, i'm having a little trouble with latex.
-
Another question:
Differentiate: 
This is what I have so far:


})
Where do I go from here?
Firstly,
(possibly typo in latex :P)
Then

Timsing both sides by 
=
-
Another question:
Differentiate: 
This is what I have so far:


})
Where do I go from here?
Firstly,
(possibly typo in latex :P)
Then

Timsing both sides by 
= ^{3/2}})
Thanks I understand where I went wrong. I should have canceled out the 2's in
. Having 2 on the bottom for all ended up getting me confused.