Is This the Correct Method for Finding dy/dx of y = ln(sin^{-1}(x))?

  • Thread starter Thread starter monet A
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the derivative dy/dx for the function y = ln(sin^{-1}(x)). The method used involves implicit differentiation and checks out with ordinary differentiation, confirming its validity. The participant expresses uncertainty about transferring y during differentiation, questioning if they were differentiating the same equation. Others reassure that the approach is correct and suggest that applying the chain rule could also be a valid method. Overall, the participant feels more confident in their differentiation skills but remains cautious about potential mistakes.
monet A
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
To find dy/dx for

y = ln(sin^{-1}(x))

I did this:

<br /> y = ln(sin^{-1}(x)) <br />

so

<br /> e^y = (sin^{-1}(x)) <br />

and

<br /> e^y \frac {dy}{dx} = \frac {1} {\sqrt{1-x^2}} <br />

then

<br /> \frac {dy}{dx} = \frac {1}{\sqrt {1-x^2} * e^y} <br />

<br /> = \frac {1}{\sqrt {1-x^2} * e^{ln(sin^{-1}(x))}} <br />

<br /> = \frac {1}{\sqrt {1-x^2} * (sin^{-1}(x))}} <br />

I think that its all valid implicit differentiation but I m not 100% confident about it, please help.

:frown:
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It looks fine to me, and the result checks out with ordinary differentiation. Which part were you uncertain about ?
 
You could have just as easily applied the chain rule but that seems to be fine :smile:
 
hypermorphism said:
It looks fine to me, and the result checks out with ordinary differentiation. Which part were you uncertain about ?

Just the validity of transferring y to differentiate both sides, I wasn't sure that I was differentiating the same equation, probably over thinking it.

Thanks heaps though because I think I am starting to become more capable with it but I don't want to be overconfident in mistakes.

:cool:
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top