If y = (3x^2+1)^3000, find dy/dx| x=0

The second part of the 3rd line says [imath]\frac{dy}{dx}=6x[/imath], and the 4th line says [imath]\frac{dy}{d\mathbf x} = 3000u^{2999}[/imath]. Both are incorrect.
 
The second part of the 3rd line says [imath]\frac{dy}{dx}=6x[/imath], and the 4th line says [imath]\frac{dy}{d\mathbf x} = 3000u^{2999}[/imath]. Both are incorrect.
which is correct then?
 
I would prefer you to brush up on the chain rule for derivatives and find the errors on your own.
 
It is your notation that is incorrect. Where is dy/du and du/dx ?
Also, have another look at your last line. What is 6(0) ?
 
Why are you using the chain rule? Use the general power rule!

If y = f(x)n, then dy/dx = n[f(x)]n-1f'(x)
 
[imath]y = {\left( {3{x^2} + 1} \right)^{3000}},\quad {\left. {\dfrac{{dy}}{{dx}}} \right|_{x = 0}}[/imath], This is exactly what was posted.
My question to ugudansam is: why not simply use to chain rule in one step?
[imath] \dfrac{dy}{dx}=3000\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}\left(6x\right)=18000x\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}~.[/imath]
Is it not clear now what the value of the derivative at [imath]x=0 \text{ is }~?[/imath]
 
[imath]y = {\left( {3{x^2} + 1} \right)^{3000}},\quad {\left. {\dfrac{{dy}}{{dx}}} \right|_{x = 0}}[/imath], This is exactly what was posted.
My question to ugudansam is: why not simply use to chain rule in one step?
[imath] \dfrac{dy}{dx}=3000\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}\left(6x\right)=18000x\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}~.[/imath]
Is it not clear now what the value of the derivative at [imath]x=0 \text{ is }~?[/imath]
because, am still learning, i am still trying to figure out the easier method
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is almost completely wrong. Your having to use a u-substitution tells me that you know very little about this.
If I were you, I would seek a sitdown session with my instructor.
 
[imath]y = {\left( {3{x^2} + 1} \right)^{3000}},\quad {\left. {\dfrac{{dy}}{{dx}}} \right|_{x = 0}}[/imath], This is exactly what was posted.
My question to ugudansam is: why not simply use to chain rule in one step?
[imath] \dfrac{dy}{dx}=3000\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}\left(6x\right)=18000x\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}~.[/imath]
Is it not clear now what the value of the derivative at [imath]x=0 \text{ is }~?[/imath]
[imath]y = {\left( {3{x^2} + 1} \right)^{3000}},\quad {\left. {\dfrac{{dy}}{{dx}}} \right|_{x = 0}}[/imath], This is exactly what was posted.
My question to ugudansam is: why not simply use to chain rule in one step?
[imath] \dfrac{dy}{dx}=3000\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}\left(6x\right)=18000x\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}~.[/imath]
Is it not clear now what the value of the derivative at [imath]x=0 \text{ is }~?[/imath]
But this also has not been simplify to the answer, as it?
 
But this also has not been simplify to the answer, as it?
[imath] \dfrac{dy}{dx}\left(18000\;{\bf\large x}\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}\right){\left. {} \right|_{x = 0}}\large =0[/imath]
Zero is as simple as it gets SEE HERE. Please have that session with the instructor. SEE HERE
 
View attachment 30132

But is this simplified enough?
There are several ways you can apply the chain rule; using u as you evidently have been taught is valid (though you are expected to outgrow it). But you have to do it carefully. Here you made several mistakes, from writing y on the second line when you surely meant y', to leaving off the derivative of u in the last line.

Here is one page that (near the bottom) differentiates a function twice, once using f(g(x)) notation, and again using your form with u:

Here is another that teaches something more like pka's approach, which is mine:

And the following page starts with many examples using your approach, then transitions to the more mature "direct" approach at the end (part 5):

When I teach this, I draw a box around the "inside" part (your u) and suggest thinking of that as if it were a variable, differentiating, and then multiplying by the derivative of what's in the box.
 
There are several ways you can apply the chain rule; using u as you evidently have been taught is valid (though you are expected to outgrow it). But you have to do it carefully. Here you made several mistakes, from writing y on the second line when you surely meant y', to leaving off the derivative of u in the last line.

Here is one page that (near the bottom) differentiates a function twice, once using f(g(x)) notation, and again using your form with u:

Here is another that teaches something more like pka's approach, which is mine:

And the following page starts with many examples using your approach, then transitions to the more mature "direct" approach at the end (part 5):

When I teach this, I draw a box around the "inside" part (your u) and suggest thinking of that as if it were a variable, differentiating, and then multiplying by the derivative of what's in the box.
ok sir, i will check to see and try adjusting the mistakes
 
That is almost completely wrong. Your having to use a u-substitution tells me that you know very little about this.
If I were you, I would seek a sitdown session with my instructor.
it takes about one month to get to that level of the course. I left high school more than 18 years ago. There is no way to have a one on one with the instructor has we are just rushing and it is being taught on whatsapp and not real math platform.
 
[imath]y = {\left( {3{x^2} + 1} \right)^{3000}},\quad {\left. {\dfrac{{dy}}{{dx}}} \right|_{x = 0}}[/imath], This is exactly what was posted.
My question to ugudansam is: why not simply use to chain rule in one step?
[imath] \dfrac{dy}{dx}=3000\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}\left(6x\right)=18000x\left(3x^2+1\right)^{2999}~.[/imath]
Is it not clear now what the value of the derivative at [imath]x=0 \text{ is }~?[/imath]
= 0
 
I agree that as you gain experience you will use u-substitutions less frequently and that you will use the chain rule without intermediate steps. But

[math]\text {Given } y = (3x^2 + 1)^{3000}, \text { find } \dfrac{dy}{dx} \text { at } x = 0.[/math]
Start by finding dy/dx. If you use a u-substitution, that means

[math]\dfrac{dy}{dx} = \dfrac{dy}{du} * \dfrac{du}{dx}.[/math]
[math]u = 3x^2 + 1 \implies \dfrac{du}{dx} = 6x \text { and } y = u^{3000}.[/math]
[math]y = u^{3000} \implies \dfrac{dy}{du} = 3000u^{2999}.[/math]
[math]\therefore \dfrac{dy}{dx} = \dfrac{dy}{du} * \dfrac{du}{dx} = 3000u^{2999} * 6x = 18000x(3x^2 + 1)^{2900}.[/math]
Now substitute 0 for x. What do you get?

Your method works if you follow it carefully.
 
y = (3x2+1)300

Let u = 3x2+1

Then y = u300

dy/dx = 300u299*du/dx

du/dx = 6x

So dy/dx = 300(3x2+1)299*6x= ....
 
Top