Math Is Fun Forum
  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -

Login

Username

Password

Not registered yet?

Post a reply

Go back

Write your message and submit
:) :| :( :D :o ;) :/ :P :lol: :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: | :dizzy :eek :kiss :roflol :rolleyes :shame :down :up :touched :sleep :wave :swear :tongue :what :faint :dunno
Options

Go back

Topic review (newest first)

mikau
2006-02-01 08:44:00

You could have posted a new thread for this. :-)

Some worksheets here: http://www.mathsisfun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=483

Browniegirl32296
2006-02-01 08:38:15

Help me!! I can't find a website that has work out sheets you can print out. Do you people have any?

Browniegirl32296
2006-02-01 08:37:00

mikau wrote:

Differentiate y = 2x^(2x) using logarithmic differentiation.

I've done it several times, in different ways, but I can't seem to get the correct answer. sad

I don't know the answer either. Sorry :-D
My teacher has not gotten in to that.tongueeek:/

Browniegirl32296
2006-02-01 08:34:38

No I havnet.

mikau
2006-02-01 08:25:46

You've published mathbooks?

Well if this truely is a misprint, it's the first time I've ever seen one in a Saxon book. Like I said, usually I think its a misprint, but in the end it always turns out right. Saxon's been completely reliable up to now.

But it is odd how most other mathbooks are written by highschool dropouts...

Calculus-Help
2006-02-01 07:50:30

I have to concur -- it should be a 2x in there. Having published a handful of math books, I must say it is not unreasonable to assume it is a misprint. They happen relatively often in math publishing, because the vast majority of book proofreaders don't understand math at all, which is kind of sad.

mikau
2006-02-01 06:32:51

Many thanks, Mike. That is the same answer I got. But the answer the book gives is:

4x^(2x) (1 + ln x)   which is exactly the same except it says ln x instead of ln (2x).

At this point I'd say it could be a misprint but I've said that before and my book always ends up being write in the end. Still, it could happen.

Calculus-Help
2006-02-01 05:02:48

Mike wrote:

Hey there, just stumbled across your forum. I run the web site www.calculus-help.com and am happy to post a solution. Just follow this link:

http://www.calculus-help.com/answers/2006_0131.gif

Do note that you shouldn't leave y in your answer; instead substitute y = 2x^(2x) back in for it at the end

I just went ahead and registered after I posted the above solution, so you can direct comments and questions to me at this username.

Mike
2006-02-01 05:00:07

Hey there, just stumbled across your forum. I run the web site www.calculus-help.com and am happy to post a solution. Just follow this link:

http://www.calculus-help.com/answers/2006_0131.gif

Do note that you shouldn't leave y in your answer; instead substitute y = 2x^(2x) back in for it at the end

mikau
2006-01-16 08:48:57

In case no one noticed, this still has not been solved. I'm pretty confident I'm doing it right but my book always end up right in the end.

Differentiate y = 2x^(2x) using logarithmic differentiation.

Anyone want a shot at it?

John E. Franklin
2006-01-14 15:02:57

I found this but don't know if it is on the same topic, nor do I know how to derive it.

mikau
2006-01-13 12:18:49

Seems to arrive at the same place. But I'm not familar with that method.

Anyway, do you think I got the poblem right?

Ricky
2006-01-13 12:03:02

Since your taking the derivative with respect to x, dx = 1.  But you aren't taking the derivative with respect to y, so dy doesn't have to be 1.  For example:

y = x

Take the derivative of both sides:

y' = x'

But x' = 1 (dx = 1)

y' = 1

mikau
2006-01-13 06:45:56

So you think maybe its a misprint?

mikau
2006-01-12 16:06:21

"The only way I know how to solve this is implicit differentiation:"

Yeah but you took the natural log of both sides to simplify, so you did use logarithmic differentiation.

But man, you did something wierd. You took the derivative of ln y, and wrote 1/y * y' in accordance with the chain rule. I suppose this is the same as 1/y dy but you didn't do it on the other side. (dx)

Anyways, I'll attempt to do it using your method.

u = 2x

y = u^u

ln y = u ln u

1/y dy = u/u du + ln u du

1/y dy = du + ln u du
1/y dy = (1 + ln u) du

Now  u = 2x so du = 2 dx

Inserting these values we get:

1/y dy =  (1 + ln 2x)2 dx

dy/dx = y(1 + ln 2x) 2

Once again, I arrive at the same conclusion.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB