anonymous
  • anonymous
I can only find derivative for x>0 , but I don't know why (according to wolfram).
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
mom I need to attach the equations
anonymous
  • anonymous
1 Attachment
anonymous
  • anonymous
My f`is apparently only true for x>0 and I have no clue where I make that assumption in my differentiation.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
Your f' is defined only for |R\{-6^{0.5), 6^(0.5)}, actually
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
how do you figure @Zekarias
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
f' is not defined at +/-6^(0.5), but it is for all other points as far as I see
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
I do see one problem which is that for -6^(0.5)<|x|0 the slope should be negative, but the derivative is positive
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
-6^(0.5)<|x|<0 I meant
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot%20y%3D(x%5E2-6)%5E(2%2F3)&t=crmtb01 you can see the slope is negative for -6^(1/2)
anonymous
  • anonymous
ok, so how should I take the derivative then? Without rewriting it and using the chainrule over and over?
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
that I'm not so sure about. I'm thinking on it.
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
@amistre64 any ideas here?
amistre64
  • amistre64
the derivative on the attachment looks fine; im not sure what the question is tho
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+y%3D%28x%5E2-6%29%5E%282%2F3%29 true I don't see wolf giving the condition that x>0
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
but what about the point I brought up? f' for -6^(1/2)
amistre64
  • amistre64
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+cbrt%28%28x%5E2-6%29%5E2%29 i think this has more intricate workings than we think
amistre64
  • amistre64
\[u=(x^2-6)^2~:~u'=4x(x^2-6)\] \[D[u^{1/3}]=\frac{u^{-1/3}}{3}u'\] \[D[u^{1/3}]=\frac{4x(x^2-6)}{3((x^2-6)^2)^{1/3}}\]
amistre64
  • amistre64
at -1\[\frac{-*-}{+}=+\]
TuringTest
  • TuringTest
but that should not be if you look at the graph http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot%20y%3D(x%5E2-6)%5E(2%2F3)&t=crmtb01 should be f'<0 at x=-1
amistre64
  • amistre64
notice that the function\[\sqrt[3]{((x^2-6)^2)}\ne \left(\sqrt[3]{(x^2-6)}\right)^2\]at all points http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28x%5E2-6%29%5E2%29%5E%281%2F3%29+-+%28%28x%5E2-6%29%5E%281%2F3%29%29%5E2
amistre64
  • amistre64
the subtlties are in how we are not using the "correct" use of a derivative
amistre64
  • amistre64
the way we are used to working with exponents seems to be a misuse of notation and doesnt express the full nature of the problem http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D%28%28x%5E2-6%29%5E2%29%5E%281%2F3%29%2C+y%3D+%28%28x%5E2-6%29%5E%281%2F3%29%29%5E2
anonymous
  • anonymous
So I should not rewrite the equation and just use the chainrule multiple times then to end up with the same answer as wolfram does?
amistre64
  • amistre64
correct, I would simplify it by making a substitution; then replacing those values in the end
anonymous
  • anonymous
k, thx. I will try that now.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Damn. That went well and it was pretty quick and easy too. So the first attempt did not work because I messed the exponents up?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.