Derivatives and the chain rule

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the chain rule in the context of derivatives, specifically regarding the differentiation of a composite function h(x) = f(g(x)). Participants are exploring different methods to find the derivative h' and are comparing their approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the chain rule to find h' but encounters a discrepancy with an alternative method that suggests a simpler approach. Some participants question the validity of this alternative method, emphasizing the necessity of the chain rule.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the implications of using the chain rule versus an alternative method. There is a recognition of differing interpretations of the problem, and some guidance has been offered regarding the correct application of differentiation rules.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on careful notation and understanding the relationship between the functions involved, as well as the importance of differentiating correctly according to the chain rule. Participants are also considering the implications of their assumptions about the functions and their derivatives.

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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AL107
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
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AL107
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AL107

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K