Page **1** of **4**

### Angry at Math

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:48 pm**

by **Natalya**

Fucking logarithm derivatives.

I know all the log rules. Power, Quotient, Product...

But what they never show you is what to do with shit inside brackets.

ln(x²) ... that's easy you can simplify to 2ln(x) which is just 2/x

But ln(x+3) what the fuck? Why don't they show us rules that cover simple shit like this? So angry.

I know ln(3) is like a bullshit number and the derivative is 0. I know ln(x)'s derivative is 1/x. But like addition of a variable and some other crap inside the brackets why isn't that a rule they teach us?

I go on Google and I get Yahoo Answers but they're always writing shit like dx/du dy blah blah... why can't they just explain the rule to me in english? I am sure it is VERY simple.

"When you see addition inside the log you just do this." You know, easy to understand words. Not 70 symbols they don't use in class.

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:22 pm**

by **Keldoclock**

You aren't angry at math. You are angry at yourself for not paying attention to high school algebra, or forgetting it.

The simplest form of ln(x+3) is ln(x+3). Log rules only allow you to simplify multiplication and division. If you are doing classwork and see ln(x+3) it's probably part of adding or mulitiplying logs together. If it's outside of that context, then what you should do with ln(x+3) is context-dependent

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:40 pm**

by **mgb519**

What he meant to say was

f(x)=ln(x+3)

f'(x)=1/(x+3)

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:46 pm**

by **mgb519**

Basically, for problems like this, you have to use the chain rule. See, when you have ln(x+3), you treat the inside like a single variable. It can be rewritten as ln(u) to illustrate this, where u in turn is x+3. When you do that, however, you have to multiply by the derivative of the inside. So you have 1/u=1/(x+3), and then you multiply by the derivative of (x+3). Which it turns out is 1, so it doesn't change anything.

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:47 pm**

by **Natalya**

mgb519 wrote:What he meant to say was

f(x)=ln(x+3)

f'(x)=1/(x+3)

See I knew it was fucking simple.

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:27 pm**

by **Ham**

only autists really need calc in the real world

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:38 pm**

by **Natalya**

Am I doing this wrong?

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:00 pm**

by **collsipp**

When distributing the power, does it affect the coefficient as well?

Other than that, it appears to be OK.

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:26 pm**

by **Natalya**

Oh shit so like does that mean the right part is (2^½)(x^½) ?

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:24 am**

by **Falk**

I don't yhink you're allowed to split the root like that since it has a minus between the terms. If there were a * or / inbetween the 4 and 2x then you would be allowed to, but all you can do here to simplify is factor 2, so it's (2)^-0.5 * (2-x)^-0.5

What I do to test if I'm allowed to do an operation is to do it on my calculator without variables. Eg. Do sqrt(4-2) and sqrt(4)-sqrt(2) and see if they are the same (in this case they aren't)

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:51 am**

by **vebulus**

...Everything said in this post is so high above my clearance level I need to report to a termination booth.

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:56 am**

by **Kommander Ken**

Makes me glad I'm an art student.

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:02 am**

by **Overwatch_Elite**

fucking nerds

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:58 am**

by **Brikguy0410**

colette, get in this thread now

### Re: Angry at Math

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:08 pm**

by **mgb519**

why are you trying to do things to it? Because I can't picture why you would want to break that up, let alone why it should be possible.