Finding Derivatives with Natural Logarithms

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on finding the derivative of the function H(x) = 2ln(x-2) at x = 7, using the limit definition of a derivative. The user, Swerting, struggles to manipulate the natural logarithm to eliminate 'h' from the equation. The correct derivative, as clarified by other forum members, is derived using the chain rule and is confirmed to be H'(7) = 2/5. Misunderstandings regarding the limit definition and the application of logarithmic properties are addressed throughout the conversation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic calculus concepts, specifically derivatives
  • Familiarity with natural logarithms and their properties
  • Knowledge of the chain rule in differentiation
  • Ability to apply the limit definition of a derivative
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of the derivative of ln(x) and its applications
  • Learn about the chain rule in differentiation for composite functions
  • Practice solving derivatives using the limit definition
  • Explore advanced properties of logarithms and their derivatives
USEFUL FOR

Students learning calculus, particularly those focusing on derivatives and logarithmic functions, as well as educators looking for examples of common misunderstandings in derivative calculations.

Swerting
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hello, I was given a problem dealing with derivatives and compositions of g and f. The problem is, when I go to find the derivative at a certain point, it involves natural logs. I can only get so far when I can no longer get 'h' out of the equation!
f(x)=ln(x) for all x>0
g(x)=(x^2)-4
H(x)=f(g(x))=2ln(x-2)
The equation for a derivative is (f(x+h)-f(x))/(h) as h approches 0.
When I attempted to solve H'(7), this is what I got.
H'(7)=\frac{H(7+h)-H(7)}{h}\ \mbox{as h approaches 0}
H'(7)=\frac{2ln((7+h)-2)-2ln(7-2)}{h}\ \mbox{as h approaches 0}
H'(7)=\frac{2ln(5+h)-2ln(5)}{h}\ \mbox{as h approaches 0}
H'(7)=\frac{2(ln(5+h)-ln(5))}{h}\ \mbox{as h approaches 0}

Again, I am trying to get the 'h' out of the natural log, meaning next to the '2' so I can cancel out the h, but am having trouble.
I know that there is a 'shortcut' and that the answer should be \frac{2}{5}, and it is probably a simple manipulation of the natural logs, but I've asked around and no one can seem to help me. I thank you for your help.

-Swerting
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Swerting said:
Hello, I was given a problem dealing with derivatives and compositions of g and f. The problem is, when I go to find the derivative at a certain point, it involves natural logs. I can only get so far when I can no longer get 'h' out of the equation!
f(x)=ln(x) for all x>0
g(x)=x^2
H(x)=f(g(x))=2ln(x-2)
No. H(x)= ln(x2)= 2 ln(x)

The equation for a derivative is (f(x+h)-f(x))/(h) as h approches infinity.
No, it isn't. It is the limit as h approaches 0.

When I attempted to solve H'(7), this is what I got.
H'(7)=\frac{H(7+h)-2-H(7)}{h}\ \mbox{as h approaches 0}
No. (H(7+h)- H(7))/h = (ln((7+h)2- ln(49))/h= 2(ln(7+h)- ln(7))/h

H'(7)=\frac{2ln((7+h)-2)-2ln(7-2)}{h}\ \mbox{as h approaches 0}
H'(7)=\frac{2ln(5+h)-2ln(5)}{h}\ \mbox{as h approaches 0}
H'(7)=\frac{2(ln(5+h)-ln(5))}{h}\ \mbox{as h approaches 0}

Again, I am trying to get the 'h' out of the natural log, meaning next to the '2' so I can cancel out the h, but am having trouble.
I know that there is a 'shortcut' and that the answer should be \frac{2}{5},
And, there, together will all of the mistakes I pointed out before is your problem. The derivative of ln(x2) at x= 7 is 2/7, not 2/5.

and it is probably a simple manipulation of the natural logs, but I've asked around and no one can seem to help me. I thank you for your help.

-Swerting
You can't get the "h" out of the natural log. Do you know the standard proof of the derivative of ln(x) itself?

Are you required to use that definition? I would think that using the derivative of ln(x) together with the chain rule of using the fact that if y= 2 ln(x) then x= ey/2 would be much simpler.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pardon me, the text on the page is quite small, and I overlooked something quite important! g(x)=(x^2)-4, that is my fault, but that is how I reached H(x)=2ln(x-2). Also, the '-2' in the first line of my attempt shouldn't be there, but I can't seem to get rid of it in the post. Finally, yes, I assume I am required to use that definition. We are not that far into the material, and we only know the one equation, and what H(x) equals.

P.S.- Sorry, the first post is always overwhelming to me, maybe double checking isn't enough anymore, next time I will triple check.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K