Presume youre ok when they sub for u,v and the derivatives. Then its just a case of (a+b)/c = a/c + b/c and noting that "a" is a fraction so a=d/e so a/c = d/(ec) as (d/e)/(c/1) = (d/e)*(1/c) = d/(ec) and cancelling the common (x+1)
Presume youre ok when they sub for u,v and the derivatives. Then its just a case of (a+b)/c = a/c + b/c and noting that "a" is a fraction so a=d/e so a/c = d/(ec) as (d/e)/(c/1) = (d/e)*(1/c) = d/(ec) and cancelling the common (x+1)
Just as an aside, youd avoid the "complicated" simplifying at the end if you noted that youre differentiating ln(x)(x+1)^(-1) using the product rule so 1/(x(x+1)) - ln(x)/(x+1)^2 Sometimes the quotient rule (which is a particular case of the product rule) makes things more complex, though it obviously gives an equivalent expression. The usual quotient rule expression for the derivative of f/g is equvalent to f'/g - fg'/g^2 which is what they wanted here.
Just as an aside, youd avoid the "complicated" simplifying at the end if you noted that youre differentiating ln(x)(x+1)^(-1) using the product rule so 1/(x(x+1)) - ln(x)/(x+1)^2 Sometimes the quotient rule (which is a particular case of the product rule) makes things more complex, though it obviously gives an equivalent expression. The usual quotient rule expression for the derivative of f/g is equvalent to f'/g - fg'/g^2 which is what they wanted here.
That is such a good point! It would make it much easier for me, thank you so much 🙂