I'm glad you couldn't prove because if you plug in you don't get equality!
I think your method of differentiation is incorrect. As in, perhaps you're supposed to view as a function of as well. What's independent here, and what's dependent?
Hi all,
I have been running through this problem but can't get anywhere near it:
prove:
I start off:
multiply top and bottom by to give the numerator. Whats left is to prove the denominator:
I have tried whatever I can think of, double angle identities,product to sum and even a messy Euler exponential expansion, but fail... is there something fundamental I have missed here? Maybe this should be in the trig sub forum.....
Thanks for reading!
Thanks for looking Ackbeet.... At least I am not going out of my mind!
The wording is suppose & are related to & via
show that (expression in original post) and find a similar expression for
I didnt consider that u&v themselves to be functions- that maybe what I needed. I'll give that ago and see what I get.
Thanks Ackbeet.
I am rather confused by this problem. Can you by any chance point me in the dirction of the method that will be used so I can look this up..... It looks like a change of variable problem, but it lacks the relation between and ..... do we assume an unknown relation, say define the partials and eliminate the or is it somrthing different to this?
Any input will be much appreciated...