# fp3 hypobolic functions,

Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
I think the differentiation in the first line should be positive, d(cosecx)/dx=-cosecxcotx, as there are 2 sine and according to the Osborn's rule, so I think d(cosechx)/dx =cosechxcothx, but the answer is negative, why is that?
0
1 year ago
#2
Differentiate using quotient rule so you can see more clearly where the negative comes from
1
Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
thanks but why I cannot apply the osborn's rule here? is this method not available or my working has mistakes?
Last edited by Hedwigeeeee; 1 year ago
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by ram8_)
Differentiate using quotient rule so you can see more clearly where the negative comes from
because if I use the osborn rule it seems that as there are two sines, so we should change the sign to positive
0
1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Hedwigeeeee)
because if I use the osborn rule it seems that as there are two sines, so we should change the sign to positive
You don't need to use that rule? It's only for trying to work out an equivalent identity for hyperbolics
0
1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Hedwigeeeee)
thanks but why I cannot apply the osborn's rule here? is this method not available or my working has mistakes?
You can't use that rule using calculus. Stuff starts to become imaginary.
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by ram8_)
You don't need to use that rule? It's only for trying to work out an equivalent identity for hyperbolics
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by mqb2766)
You can't use that rule using calculus. Stuff starts to become imaginary.
0
1 year ago
#9
Hedwigeeeee

If you want convincing Osborn's rule doesn't work here:

And not a sin^2 in sight.
1
Thread starter 1 year ago
#10
I mean there are two sines in cosechx(1/sinhx) and cothx(coshx/ sinhx), so it is sinh^2, so I think we should change the sign. though it is true that if we do not use the Osborn's rule, the sign will not change.
0
1 year ago
#11
I think you are getting confused about Osborn's rule
0
Thread starter 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by ram8_)
I think you are getting confused about Osborn's rule
could you tell me what is wrong in my method
0
1 year ago
#13
It's for converting a non-hyperbolic trigonometric identity into an equivalent hyperbolic one. So it would swap signs for when there's a product of two sines, so the sinh version with be the opposite sign, e.g. cos^2(x) - sin^2(x) will be cosh^2(x) + sinh^2(x). You wouldn't need to use it for this problem as it is just differentiating. You can also confirm this by multiplying two sinh(x)'s in its exponential form.
0
1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Hedwigeeeee)
could you tell me what is wrong in my method
It's not remotely relevant to what you're trying to do

Osborn's rule allows you to convert a trigonometric identity into an equivalent hyperbolic identity. It has nothing to do with differentiation!

Seriously, forget all about it! I think I saw Osborn's rule once when I first learnt hyperbolics and then never used it again - it's as easy to derive the identities directly as it is to remember the correct conditions for applying the rule
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (219)
42.61%
The paper was reasonable (220)
42.8%
Not feeling great about that exam... (47)
9.14%
It was TERRIBLE (28)
5.45%