What is the derivative of ln(u)^k?

  • Thread starter Thread starter silvershine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
silvershine
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
This is a concept that confuses me. If you have a function where f(x) = ln(u)^k (where u is a function and k is an unknown constant), then how would you solve for the derivative? I've already guessed it would be

f'(x) = [kln(u)^(k-1)](1/u)(u')

Is that right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
looks right to me
 
silvershine said:
This is a concept that confuses me. If you have a function where f(x) = ln(u)^k (where u is a function and k is an unknown constant), then how would you solve for the derivative? I've already guessed it would be

f'(x) = [kln(u)^(k-1)](1/u)(u')

Is that right?
No, it's not. The derivative does not involve a log.

If f(x) = ln[uk], where u is a differentiable function of x, then
$$f'(x) = \frac{1}{u^k}\cdot ku^{k-1}\cdot u'$$
$$= \frac{k}{u}\cdot u'$$

This is essentially the same problem that you asked in the other thread you posted. As I said there, you can do things this way, but it is much simpler to simplify the log expression before you differentiate.

If we simplify first, we have
f(x) = k ln(u)
So f'(x) = k * d/dx(ln(u)) = k * 1/u * u' = (k/u)* u', which is the same as I got by differentiating without simplifying first.

For readers who didn't see the other thread, I'm assuming that what you wrote as ln(u)^k means ln[uk], and not [ln(u)]k.
 
Mark44 said:
No, it's not. The derivative does not involve a log.

If f(x) = ln[uk], where u is a differentiable function of x, then
$$f'(x) = \frac{1}{u^k}\cdot ku^{k-1}\cdot u'$$
$$= \frac{k}{u}\cdot u'$$

This is essentially the same problem that you asked in the other thread you posted. As I said there, you can do things this way, but it is much simpler to simplify the log expression before you differentiate.

If we simplify first, we have
f(x) = k ln(u)
So f'(x) = k * d/dx(ln(u)) = k * 1/u * u' = (k/u)* u', which is the same as I got by differentiating without simplifying first.

For readers who didn't see the other thread, I'm assuming that what you wrote as ln(u)^k means ln[uk], and not [ln(u)]k.

Ha, yes, I misread the OP - I thought the exponent was on the lnu. My mistake.
 
I think the power is on the ln(u), not on u itself. He closed the parenthesis before adding the power, so it appears to be :
f(x) =(ln(u))^k.
 
For original Zeta function, ζ(s)=1+1/2^s+1/3^s+1/4^s+... =1+e^(-slog2)+e^(-slog3)+e^(-slog4)+... , Re(s)>1 Riemann extended the Zeta function to the region where s≠1 using analytical extension. New Zeta function is in the form of contour integration, which appears simple but is actually more inconvenient to analyze than the original Zeta function. The original Zeta function already contains all the information about the distribution of prime numbers. So we only handle with original Zeta...
Back
Top