Section 3.3: Techniques of Differentiation: Learning Objectives
Section 3.3: Techniques of Differentiation: Learning Objectives
Section 3.3: Techniques of Differentiation: Learning Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If h ( x ) =
then h ( x ) =
Comments
c
mx + b
xn
c f ( x)
f ( x) + g ( x)
f ( x) g ( x)
0
m
nx n1
c f ( x)
f ( x ) + g ( x )
f ( x ) g ( x )
(
)
= D ( 4x ) + D ( 6x ) D ( 5 )
(Sum and Difference Rules )
= 4 D ( x ) + D ( 6x ) D ( 5 ) ( Constant Multiple Rule )
f ( x ) = Dx 4x 3 + 6x 5
3
( )
= 4 3x 2 + 6 0
= 12x 2 + 6
Challenge to the Reader: Observe that the 5 term has no impact on the
derivative. Why does this make sense graphically? Hint: How would the
graphs of y = 4x 3 + 6x and y = 4x 3 + 6x 5 be different? Consider the
slopes of corresponding tangent lines to those graphs.
m = f (1)
From Example 1, remember that
f ( x ) = 12x 2 + 6 .
= 12x 2 + 6 x =1
= 12 (1) + 6
2
= 6
We can find a Point-Slope Form for the equation of the desired tangent
line.
The line contains the point: ( x1 , y1 ) = (1, 3) .
It has slope: m = 6 .
y y1 = m ( x x1 )
y ( 3) = 6 ( x 1)
y + 3 = 6x + 6
y = 6x + 3
y = mx + b
( 3) = ( 6 ) (1) + b
b=3
y = 6x + 3
Observe how the red tangent line below is consistent with the equation
above.
f ( x) = 0
12x 2 + 6 = 0
12x 2 = 6
x2 =
1
2
x=
1
2
x=
2
2
2
2
and
.
2
2
2
2
2
,
f
,
2
2
5
,
which
is
2
2
2
, and
2
2
,
f
2
2 , which is
2
,
2
2
5
2
.
)(
Find Dx x 4 + 1 x 2 + 4x 5 .
Solution
TIP 2: Clearly break the product up into factors, as has already been done
here. The number of factors (here, two) will equal the number of terms in
the derivative when we use the Product Rule to expand it out.
TIP 3: Pointer method. Imagine a pointer being moved from factor to
factor as we write the derivative term-by-term. The pointer indicates
which factor we differentiate, and then we copy the other factors to form
the corresponding term in the derivative.
(x
) (x
+1
( Dx )
)(
+ 4x 5
copy
( Dx )
copy
) (
( x + 1) D ( x
Dx x 4 + 1 x 2 + 4x 5 = Dx x 4 + 1 x 2 + 4x 5
4
+ 4x 5
(
)
( x + 1) [ 2x + 4 ]
= 4x 3 x 2 + 4x 5
4
= 6x 5 + 20x 4 20x 3 + 2x + 4
Challenge to the Reader: Find the derivative by first multiplying out the
product and then differentiating term-by-term.
The Product Rule can be extended to three or more factors.
The Exercises include a related proof.
Example 5 (Differentiating a Product of Three Factors)
)(
d
(t + 4 ) t 2 + 2 3 t t . The result does not have to be simplified,
dt
and negative exponents are acceptable here. (Your instructor may object!)
Find
Solution
(t + 4 )
( Dt )
d
(t + 4 ) t 2 + 2
dt
)(
(t
+2
) (t
1/3
t
copy
copy
copy
( Dt )
copy
copy
copy
( Dt )
)(
)
(t + 4 ) D (t + 2 ) ( t t )
(
t t = Dt ( t + 4 ) t 2 + 2
2
t t
+
+
(t + 4 ) (t 2 + 2 ) Dt (t 1/3 t )
)
(t + 4 ) [ 2t ] ( t t )
(
)(
= [1] t 2 + 2
t t
+
+
1 2 /3
t
1
3
(t + 4 ) (t 2 + 2 )
TIP 4: Apply the Constant Multiple Rule, not the Product Rule, to something
like Dx 2x 3 . While the Product Rule would work, it would be inefficient here.
( )
f ( x)
,
g ( x)
g ( x ) f ( x ) f ( x ) g ( x )
then h ( x ) =
.
2
g
x
(
)
If h ( x ) =
Lo D ( Hi) Hi D ( Lo )
Hi
D =
Lo ( Lo )2 , the square of what's below
Observe that the numerator and the denominator on the right-hand side
rhyme.
At this point, we can differentiate all rational functions.
1
,
g ( x)
then h ( x ) =
g ( x )
g ( x )
( )
( Lo)
D Lo
TIP 6: While the Reciprocal Rule is useful, it is not all that necessary to
memorize if the Quotient Rule has been memorized.
Example 6 (Differentiating a Quotient)
7x 3
Find Dx 2
.
3x + 1
Solution
Lo D ( Hi) Hi D ( Lo )
7x 3
Dx 2
=
2
3x + 1
( Lo ) , the square of what's below
3x
(
=
( 3x
=
=
)
)
( 3x
+1
+ 1 [ 7 ] ( 7x 3) [ 6x ]
( 3x
3x 2 + 1
+1
21x 2 + 18x + 7
+ 1 Dx ( 7x 3) ( 7x 3) Dx 3x 2 + 1
, or
7 21x 2 + 18x
3x 2 + 1
, or
21x 2 18x 7
( 3x
+1
6w 2 w
Let s ( w ) =
. Find s ( w ) .
3w
Solution
Rewriting s ( w ) by splitting the fraction yields a simpler solution than
applying the Quotient Rule directly would have.
6w 2
w
3w
3w
1
= 2w w 1/2
3
1
s ( w ) = 2 + w 3/2
6
1
12w 3/2 + 1
12w 2 + w
=2+
, or
, or
6w 3/2
6w 3/2
6w 2
s (w) =
The Difference Rule can be similarly proven, or, if we accept the Constant Multiple Rule, we
can use: f g = f + ( g ) . Sec. 2.2, Footnote 1 extends to derivatives of linear combinations.
2. Proof of the Product Rule of Differentiation. Let p = fg .
p ( x + h) p ( x)
h 0
h
f ( x + h ) g ( x + h )
f ( x ) g ( x )
= lim
h 0
h
f ( x + h) g ( x + h) f ( x + h) g ( x) + f ( x + h) g ( x) f ( x) g ( x)
= lim
h 0
h
f ( x + h) g ( x + h) f ( x + h) g ( x) f ( x + h) g ( x) f ( x) g ( x)
= lim
+
h 0
h
h
p ( x ) = lim
f ( x + h) g ( x + h) f ( x + h) g ( x)
f ( x + h) g ( x) f ( x) g ( x)
+ lim
h
0
h
h
f ( x + h ) g ( x + h ) g ( x )
f ( x + h ) f ( x )
g ( x )
= lim
+ lim
h 0
h 0
h
h
g ( x + h) g ( x)
f ( x + h) f ( x)
+ lim
= lim f ( x + h )
g ( x )
h 0
h 0
h
h
= lim
h 0
g ( x + h) g ( x)
f ( x + h) f ( x)
+ lim
lim g ( x )
= lim f ( x + h ) lim
h 0
h 0
h
0
h
h
h
0
= f ( x )
g ( x )
+ f ( x )
g ( x )
, or
f ( x ) g ( x ) + f ( x ) g ( x )
p ( x + h) p ( x)
h 0
h
f ( x + h) f ( x)
g ( x + h) g ( x)
= lim
h 0
h
f ( x + h) f ( x) 1
= lim
h 0 g ( x + h )
g ( x ) h
p ( x ) = lim
f ( x + h) g ( x) f ( x) g ( x + h) 1
= lim
h 0
g ( x + h) g ( x)
h
f ( x + h) g ( x) f ( x) g ( x + h)
1
= lim
h 0
g ( x + h) g ( x)
h
f ( x + h) g ( x) f ( x) g ( x) + f ( x) g ( x) f ( x) g ( x + h)
1
= lim
h 0
g ( x + h) g ( x)
h
f ( x + h ) g ( x ) f ( x ) g ( x ) +
f ( x ) g ( x ) f ( x ) g ( x + h )
1
= lim
h 0
g ( x + h) g ( x)
h
f ( x + h ) f ( x ) g ( x ) + f ( x )
g ( x ) g ( x + h )
1
= lim
h 0
g ( x + h) g ( x)
h
f ( x + h ) f ( x ) g ( x ) f ( x )
g ( x + h ) g ( x )
1
= lim
h 0
g ( x + h) g ( x)
h
f ( x )
g ( x + h ) g ( x )
f ( x + h ) f ( x ) g ( x )
1
lim
lim
= lim
h 0
h 0
h 0 g ( x + h ) g ( x )
h
h
f ( x + h) f ( x)
g ( x + h) g ( x)
1
=
g ( x ) lim
f ( x ) lim
h
h
h 0
h 0
g( x) g( x)
=
g ( x )
f ( x )
f ( x )
g ( x )
1
g ( x )
g ( x ) f ( x ) f ( x ) g ( x )
g ( x )
h ( x ) =
f ( x ) g ( x ) h ( x )
f ( x)
. Remember that h ( x ) =
. Then,
g( x)
g( x)
f ( x)
f ( x ) g ( x )
g( x)
h ( x ) =
g( x)
f ( x )
f ( x ) g ( x ) g ( x )
=
g ( x )
=
g ( x ) f ( x ) f ( x ) g ( x )
g ( x )
g ( x )
g ( x )
This approach is attributed to Marie Agnessi (1748); see The AMATYC Review, Fall 2002
(Vol. 24, No. 1), p.2, Letter to the Editor by Joe Browne.
See also Quotient Rule Quibbles by Eugene Boman in the Fall 2001 edition (vol.23,
No.1) of The AMATYC Review, pp.55-58. The article suggests that the Reciprocal Rule for
1
Dx
can be proven directly by using the Limit Definition of the Derivative, and then
g( x)
the Product Rule can be used in conjunction with the Reciprocal Rule to differentiate
1
f ( x )
; the Spivak and Apostol calculus texts take this approach. The article
g( x)
presents another proof, as well.