You can't SOLVE anything as you don't have an EQUATION.
However, if as your title suggests, you are trying to find the DERIVATIVE of , then start by taking the logarithm of both sides and simplify the RHS before differentiating.
You can't SOLVE anything as you don't have an EQUATION.
However, if as your title suggests, you are trying to find the DERIVATIVE of , then start by taking the logarithm of both sides and simplify the RHS before differentiating.
I spent 4 hrs on this question. The reason why I don't like typing equations using keyboard is because it's slow and frustrating, especially when the equation becomes long and chaotic.
Simply put, I utilized ln, e and the chain rule to differentiate the RHS. Answer turned out very differently, however. Using the same mathematical reasoning, I have no issues with the other question. It's probably a matter of algebraic simplification-hence, I want the confirmation.
If that is true-a matter of simplication-then, I'll skip past the question as I never bother with the rudimentary concrete details.
I applied chain rule to y = e^[ln(x)ln(ln(x)] and I'm very sure I have to. If you could tell me if this part is correct, it is sufficient as the steps beyond the chain rules are tautological simplication.