Derivative simplification (a tangle!)

This thing is a monster:

Find for

Is there some kind of easy way to differentiate this thing? Am I missing something?

So far I have , where

Product rule, chain rule, blah blah ... I get: Factoring:

My individual derivatives are

SOOOOO putting it all together I get:

And I can factor futher:

Does this seem right? Please help I have very little time to submit this and my teacher is a ... ah ... hard-case. She'll mark me down for skipping steps, despite the right answer. Can this be futher simplified? Was there an easier way to go about this?

Thanks for any help you guys can provide!

Re: Derivative simplification (a tangle!)

Comparing here...

sin^3(5x) (4x - x^2)^(1/3) (1 - tan x)^(-1) - Wolfram|Alpha

... you'll see your only final error is your overall negative sign (where from?). Although earlier (in the SOOOOO line) you're missing the polynomial part of the middle term.

The best chance of minimising tangles in this case is probably ...

Product rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... from which you get this overview...

http://www.ballooncalculus.org/draw/...triple/one.png

... the bottom line of which is pretty much Wolfram's final version.

(Straight lines differentiate downwards with respect to x.)

If there's a better way I don't see it. Edit: D'oh! Yes of course, thanks Skeeter! Although, funnily enough, the log method doesn't seem any simpler in this case. Though it often is, obviously.

Larger

I probably won't zoom in on the chain rules on this occasion - it might just re-aggravate the tangle. Not promising, though!

__________________________________________________

Don't integrate - balloontegrate!

Balloon Calculus; standard integrals, derivatives and methods

Balloon Calculus Drawing with LaTeX and Asymptote!

Re: Derivative simplification (a tangle!)

primo candidate for logarithmic differentiation ...

Re: Derivative simplification (a tangle!)

Thanks guys! I re-worked the problem and got:

Which isn't that far off; I'm a little worried about that in place of skeeter's in the first numerator but the rest seems ok. My weakness (one of em, anyway) is trigonometric proofs, so reworking 'em gives me headaches. That's what I submitted so hopefully I won't lose too many points for it.

Thank skeeter, thanks tom!!