Differentiation: Product rule and composite rule

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around verifying integrals through differentiation, specifically using the product rule and the chain rule. The original poster presents two integrals involving trigonometric functions and constants.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to differentiate the provided integrals but reports not obtaining the correct solutions. Some participants suggest the necessity of applying the product rule and the chain rule in their responses.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging in clarifying the terminology around differentiation rules, with some noting the distinction between the "composition" rule and the chain rule. There is an ongoing exploration of the correct application of these rules to the integrals presented.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions that a is a non-zero constant and c is an arbitrary constant, which may influence the differentiation process. There is also a note about the absence of an attachment containing the original solutions.

imy786
Messages
321
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement

Use differentiation to verify that the following integrals are correct (where a is not = 0 is a constant and c is an arbitrary constant

(a) integrate xsinax dx= ( −x/a ) (cosax) +(1/a2) sinax+c

(b) integrate tanax dx=(−1/a) ln(cosax)+c

Homework Equations



Composite rule dy/dx = (dy/du) (du/dx)

The Attempt at a Solution



Im not getting the right solution after diffrenting.

attached are my solutions
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see an attachment. For the first problem, you also need the product rule. For the second one, you need to use the chain rule twice.

(Edited after Mark44's reply below).
 
Last edited:
What both of you are referring to as the "composition" rule, most books that I've seen call the chain rule.
 
Hm, for some reason I didn't even realize that I was just repeating what he said in a slightly different way. :rolleyes: Yes, the "chain rule" is what I'd normally call it. I don't think I've seen it called anything else in a book.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K