Derivatives and the chain rule

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the chain rule in differentiating a composite function, h(x) = f(g(x)). One participant initially believed that using the chain rule, f'(g(x)) * g'(x), was necessary, yielding a derivative of 10 when x=1. However, an alternative method suggested only evaluating f(g(1)) and looking up f'(-1) in a table, leading to confusion due to differing results. Clarification was provided that the chain rule must be applied correctly, emphasizing that h'(x) involves both f' and g' in the differentiation process. The importance of understanding the relationship between the derivatives of composite functions is highlighted, as neglecting g' can lead to incorrect conclusions.
AL107
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
x: -1 1 3
f(x): 6 3. 1
f’(x): 5. -3 -2
g(x): 3. -1. 2
g’(x): -2. 2. 3

The table above gives values of f, f', g, and g' at selected values of x. If h(x) = f(g(x)), then h'(1) =
(A) 5
(B) 6
(C) 9
(D) 10
(E) 12
Relevant Equations
h(x)=f(g(x))
I originally thought you’d have to use the chain rule to get h’, as in: f’(g(x))*g’(x). Plugging in 1 for x, I got an answer of 10. An online solution, however, said that you only had to get f(g(1)), which was f(-1), then look up f’(-1) in the table. Both approaches seem logical to me, but they yield different results. Can someone clarify? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh, here is a better table:
FE83F39F-47E7-4F3D-A38F-7C8208306204.jpeg
 
AL107 said:
An online solution, however, said that you only had to get f(g(1)), which was f(-1), then look up f’(-1) in the table.
How can that possibly be right? The chain rule applies.
 
PeroK said:
How can that possibly be right? The chain rule applies.
Thank you!
 
In the second method, you are differentiating h by x and f by g, so you are not performing the same operation on both sides of the equation. Be careful when using the prime notation: h'(x) means dh/dx, but f'(g) means df/dg. It may be helpful to write out the derivatives explicitly:
h(x) = f(g)
dh/dx = df/dx = df/dg*dg/dx
 
Intuitively, you can not just look at f' because x has to go through g before f is applied. Consider the simple example, f(x)=x. Then h(x)=f(g(x)) = g(x) and clearly h'= g', so g' can not be ignored.
 
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...