Turn on thread page Beta

implicit differentiation watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Hi
    i understand why they simplfied the equation and then differentiated each term with respect to x. But, i did the started by differentiating x with respect to x to get 1. And then on the left hand side used the qoutient rule to differentiate that fraction term with respect to x. it didnt reduce to the same answer.

    Am i doing the quotient rule wrong or can i not do it this way.
    Thanks for your help:

    Question:
    http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com/...hapter%204.pdf

    excercise b question 1f

    Thanks for your help
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing intrinsically wrong with doing it your way. I would expect you to end up with a fairly complex expressions , however and then simplifying it will NOT be fun.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Nothing intrinsically wrong with doing it your way. I would expect you to end up with a fairly complex expressions , however and then simplifying it will NOT be fun.
    Oh ok, it should simplify to the same expression though shouldn't it? i cant get that to happen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 111davey1)
    Oh ok, it should simplify to the same expression though shouldn't it? i cant get that to happen.
    If you differentiated the quotient properly with respect to x and with respect to y, it should
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3rmit)
    If you differentiated the quotient properly with respect to x and with respect to y, it should
    I think i did.. but clearly i didnt
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 111davey1)
    I think i did.. but clearly i didnt
    Can I see your working?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3rmit)
    Can I see your working?
    i dont have a way of uploading it . But i think the problem lies with my quotient rule as i equated the fraction they give as the answer and my answer and it doesn't cancel...

    This is how i set up the quotient rule:

    1=2timesdy/dx(x^2-y)-2y(2x-dy/dx)(all over)(x^2-y)^2
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 111davey1)
    Oh ok, it should simplify to the same expression though shouldn't it? i cant get that to happen.
    One thing that you sometimes need to do is use the original expression (that you were differentiating).

    In this case, assuming you diffed the fraction correctly, you've now got some expression with  (x^2-y)^2 as the denominator.

    You can use the original equation to replace x^2-y)^2 with something a bit less unpleasant to work with. (No idea how much it will help, but I think it will).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 111davey1)
    i dont have a way of uploading it . But i think the problem lies with my quotient rule as i equated the fraction they give as the answer and my answer and it doesn't cancel...

    This is how i set up the quotient rule:

    1=2timesdy/dx(x^2-y)-2y(2x-dy/dx)(all over)(x^2-y)^2
    You'd need to a lot of substituting to get to the fraction they've given but if you try numerical values, you'll see that you get the same gradient value using their fraction and yours, if you've done it correctly
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3rmit)
    You'd need to a lot of substituting to get to the fraction they've given but if you try numerical values, you'll see that you get the same gradient value using their fraction and yours, if you've done it correctly
    Thanks for your help
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 111davey1)
    Thanks for your help
    Just multiply both sides by the denominator

    Name:  Capture.PNG
Views: 37
Size:  3.8 KB

    expand and rearrange, you get a nice expression like that, then just implicitly differentiate like all of the other ones on the sheet before that.

    no need to dive into a quotient here.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I was doing that exercise on friday and I just multiplied the whole equation by x^2 - y to get an equation of x^3 - xy - 2y = 0. It's much simpler that way.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: January 29, 2017

University open days

  • Manchester Metropolitan University
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 14 Nov '18
  • University of Chester
    Chester campuses Undergraduate
    Wed, 14 Nov '18
  • Anglia Ruskin University
    Ambitious, driven, developing your career & employability? Aspiring in your field, up-skilling after a career break? Then our Postgrad Open Evening is for you. Postgraduate
    Wed, 14 Nov '18
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Equations

Best calculators for A level Maths

Tips on which model to get

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.