Results 1 to 11 of 11

Math Help - Even More Natural Log Problems With trig =D

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    46

    Even More Natural Log Problems With trig =D

    Ok this is the problem
    \ln|sec5x + cot4x|

    I assumed that the ln Can be distributed so i converted it to

    \ln sec5x +  \ln cot(4x)

    and thus

    \frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{sec 5x tan 5x}{sec 5x} + \frac {-csc^2 5x}{cot 4x}

    which then eventually reduced down to

    \frac{(tan 5x cot 4x) - csc^2 5x}{cot 4x}

    does this look correct?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member General's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Kuwait
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by x5pyd3rx View Post
    Ok this is the problem
    \ln|sec5x + cot4x|

    I assumed that the ln Can be distributed so i converted it to

    \ln sec5x + \ln cot(4x)

    and thus

    \frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{sec 5x tan 5x}{sec 5x} + \frac {-csc^2 5x}{cot 4x}

    which then eventually reduced down to

    \frac{(tan 5x cot 4x) - csc^2 5x}{cot 4x}

    does this look correct?
    No No No No .
    In general: ln(a+b) \neq ln(a) + ln(b).

    and what happened for the absolute values ?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    46
    OK so the absolute value signs mean i would have to do 2 equations one for negative and one for positive ?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by x5pyd3rx View Post
    Ok this is the problem
    \ln|sec5x + cot4x|

    I assumed that the ln Can be distributed so i converted it to

    \ln sec5x + \ln cot(4x)

    and thus

    \frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{sec 5x tan 5x}{sec 5x} + \frac {-csc^2 5x}{cot 4x}

    which then eventually reduced down to

    \frac{(tan 5x cot 4x) - csc^2 5x}{cot 4x}

    does this look correct?
    ouch...as the beatles song goes, "because i told you before, ooo, you can't do that."

    anyway, define
    f(x)= \ln|x|,<br />
g(x)=(\sec5x + \cot4x)

    then apply chain rule and note that there is yet another small application of the chain rule embedded within g(x). So you'll 2 chain rules to perform to get your answer.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    46
    Im Completly lost.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    46
    Wait so your saying that i should calculate the derivative for g(x) for all values greater than 0 and then less than 0 and then back into f(x)?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    130
    chain rule: f(g(x))^{'} = f^{'}(g(x))g^{'}(x)

    in your case:

    deriv of ln|x| evaluated at (sec5x + cot4x) times the deriv of (sec5x + cot4x), where for example the deriv of \sec(5x) is 5\tan(5 x)\sec(5 x).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    46
    Excuse the triple posting but, i found something stating that

    the derivative of a absolute value is u/|u| *du/dx if i can assume that then my answer would be simple

    \ln|sec5x+cot4x|
    \frac{d}{dx} = \frac{\frac{sec5x + cot4x * sec5x tan5x - csc^2x}{|sec5x +cot4x|}}{|sec5x + cot4x|}

    This is possible because the derivative of ln states that du/dx = u'/u
    so then i would simply just cancel the denomerators of both fractions. and my answer would be the numerator's Numerator.
    frac{sec5x + cot4x * sec5x tan5x - csc^2x}{|sec5x +cot4x|}
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    46
    Yes our answers would be the same. Except i forgot to "derive properly" thank you for your help
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by x5pyd3rx View Post
    Excuse the triple posting but, i found something stating that

    the derivative of a absolute value is u/|u| *du/dx if i can assume that then my answer would be simple

    \ln|sec5x+cot4x|
    \frac{d}{dx} = \frac{\frac{sec5x + cot4x * sec5x tan5x - csc^2x}{|sec5x +cot4x|}}{|sec5x + cot4x|}

    This is possible because the derivative of ln states that du/dx = u'/u
    so then i would simply just cancel the denomerators of both fractions. and my answer would be the numerator's Numerator.
    frac{sec5x + cot4x * sec5x tan5x - csc^2x}{|sec5x +cot4x|}
    the absolute value appears because the principal branch of the natural logarithm is chosen so as to restrict the domain of the function to positive reals. There is no such thing as a formula for taking the derivative of an "absolute value." First of all, the absolute value, of say x, does not have a proper limit...thus no derivative...but anyway, the bottom line is that with the substitutions i show above, this should be a piece of cake, assuming you've learned the chain rule. I really don't see what's hanging you up.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by x5pyd3rx View Post
    Yes our answers would be the same. Except i forgot to "derive properly" thank you for your help

    oh good, you got rid of that line about formulas for taking derivs of absolute values...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Derivatives with Trig and Natural Logs
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 19th 2011, 06:00 PM
  2. [SOLVED] Natural log and trig exponents
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 7th 2011, 03:41 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 17th 2011, 06:12 PM
  4. Two More Natural Log Problems
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 19th 2010, 07:57 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 18th 2009, 05:10 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum