About Session 9, Clip 3 on product rule.
At about 6 min. 8 sec into the video, the professor says that he introduced u(v(x+∆x) which he didn't like. However, the formula until then reads (u(x+∆x)-u(x))v(x+∆x), so the u in u(v(x+∆x) doesn't concern v(x+∆x) but belongs to (u(x+∆x)-u(x)) as is indicated by the brackets.
He later introduced +u(x)v(x+∆x) to cancel for something that actually was not there in the first place.
Although it ends up as it should, I cannot follow the explantion provided. The explanation in the lecture notes seems more logical.
Did I miss something?
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.
Can you give a website address?
Sorry it took a few days. The address is http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-01sc-single-variable-calculus-fall-2010/part-a-definition-and-basic-rules/session-9-product-rule/
from the course 18-01sc single variable calculus
with kind regards