Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Exercise [06.08]
Author Message

Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 13:32
Posts: 106
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Exercise [06.08]

Using the chain rule:

If we let , with , then,

Using the quotient rule:

Where is of the form:

Then,

_________________
Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there.

 Last edited by Shaun Culver on 28 May 2008, 18:01, edited 2 times in total. Corrected quotient rule

25 Apr 2008, 21:56

Joined: 19 Mar 2008, 14:09
Posts: 36
Re: Exercise [6.8]
You made a minor mistake on the second one Shaun. The quotient rule is:

Notice the minus sign in the numerator and not the plus sign that you have used.

28 Apr 2008, 12:15

Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 13:32
Posts: 106
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Re: Exercise [6.8]
You're right, thanks Kurdt.

_________________
Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there.

28 Apr 2008, 14:45
Supporter

Joined: 07 Jun 2008, 08:21
Posts: 235
Re: Exercise [06.08]
For anyone working from RTR I think it would be confusing looking at your first solution where you quote the chain rule, as Penrose does not use these words in his book.
I think it would be better to make it clear that the formula that Penrose gives in section 6.5, namely:

is in fact the chain rule in another disguise, or use his formula directly.

07 Jul 2008, 07:45
Supporter

Joined: 07 Jun 2008, 08:21
Posts: 235
Re: Exercise [06.08]
It is sometimes easier to use an alternative way of dealing with the derivative of a quotient, as follows:

therefore

Using Leibniz Law this gives

In particular cases this can then be simplified and is often easier to manipulate than the expressions obtained using the quotient rule.

In the example given

Substituting for y gives

Although in this case it is debatable whether this is easier than using the quotient rule directly, in cases where the denominator is a complicated expression it can be much easier and less prone to error.

07 Jul 2008, 08:22

Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 13:32
Posts: 106
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Re: Exercise [06.08]
vasco wrote:
For anyone working from RTR I think it would be confusing looking at your first solution where you quote the chain rule, as Penrose does not use these words in his book.
I think it would be better to make it clear that the formula that Penrose gives in section 6.5, namely:

is in fact the chain rule in another disguise, or use his formula directly.

I agree. It would be benefitial to have both methods though. If you'd like, you could post this as an alternative solution - Exercise [06.08] b .

_________________
Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there.

07 Jul 2008, 20:36
 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]