❖ The Chain Rule : Harder Example ❖

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 лют 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 257

  • @Trademen100
    @Trademen100 14 років тому +3

    I really have to say, I've been in university for a little over two months now, and my math was going to be the death of me, but your videos have really helped. I really can't explain the relief of knowing that there is somewhere I can go to get a real human being to explain something to me rather then a 5 paragraph text book definition of what chain rule is and how to apply it.

  • @carlsonmoncrief3370
    @carlsonmoncrief3370 7 років тому +2

    Thank you for showing the algebra involved to simplify the problem after the calculus. A lot of videos don't show simplifying the problem to the final answer, and we don't go over any of that in class since we've technically already learned it, but it's a nice refresher.

  • @mandeepsinghformula
    @mandeepsinghformula 11 років тому +39

    I fucking love you man

  • @MrCaRTom
    @MrCaRTom 14 років тому

    dude, i just spend 2:30 hours watching your videos. crazy but honestly, you are driving me into math. thanks so much.

  • @cocowang4853
    @cocowang4853 10 років тому +1

    You save my life !!! My math assignment due tonight and I didn't know nothing! haha!!

  • @ussnimitz3666
    @ussnimitz3666 11 років тому +1

    Just donated $5 ! Don't stop what you're doing, you've helped me so much!

  • @krokonaw
    @krokonaw 13 років тому +1

    I have Calc. exam tomorrow and you came to save my life!

  • @abdullahyusuf190
    @abdullahyusuf190 6 років тому

    Im a Junior in college and I wanted to review derivatives just for the hell of it, and I realized idk how I would have gotten through calculus without JMT. You da man!

    • @yagamilight3547
      @yagamilight3547 5 років тому

      Oh yeah, he saved my ass, too - 6 years ago.

  • @briandrost1155
    @briandrost1155 8 років тому

    Thank you so much for this video. I was looking all over UA-cam trying to find a video that used the chain rule like you just did. I needed a refresher for factoring out negative and fractional exponents. I wish I found this sooner because I've been stuck on the same type of problems for days. Thank you!!!

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  14 років тому

    @MIT2004 no, i did take precal in high school, but i was a pretty terrible student at that point, so i retook precal in college. my algebra has always been solid, but the trig i did not get until college.

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  13 років тому

    @707Cookiez no problem, happy to help: )

  • @smarties1126
    @smarties1126 13 років тому

    @patrickJMT My Calculus BC teacher also said that it makes it easier to divide by hand. He doesn't require rationalizing the denominator because it is just a remnant from the days when we didn't have calculators.

  • @ngufest6193
    @ngufest6193 9 років тому +23

    nice one uncle Patrick may God bless you

  • @amos31103
    @amos31103 2 роки тому

    Thanks very much for not keeping your knowledge but always sharing. The greatest gift men can give is to share their knowledge with the rest of the world.

  • @Abaadira
    @Abaadira 11 років тому

    Patrick! Your amazing man! Most teachers think they can teach just because they have a degree in math. NO! No one cares about your background in math if you can't explain it to your students. Thanks patrick. I certainly do appreciate your videos!

  • @shubhamthakur4053
    @shubhamthakur4053 9 років тому +13

    Wow that was such a great video. Even my teachers couldnt have made this any easier. :D

    • @patrickjmt
      @patrickjmt  9 років тому +9

      Perfect!

    • @ThomasRonnberg
      @ThomasRonnberg 9 років тому +5

      +patrickJMT People like you are making schools redundant. True hero.

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  14 років тому

    @MrCaRTom my pleasure!

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  13 років тому

    @patrickJMT other than it puts things in a standard form and makes some division by hand easier. there is no mathematical reason why it must be done though. ask your teacher and see what they say (i'm not sure, will most likely be the answer).

  • @AdeptusCogitius
    @AdeptusCogitius 13 років тому

    You guys think your teachers are bad, I'm teaching this to myself!
    And I get it with this guy!

  • @ecaravello
    @ecaravello 12 років тому

    Great stuff Patrick. Thank you for all the great instructional videos, you are easily THE best virtual tutor I've come across on UA-cam. Cheers.

  • @tylermeditz787
    @tylermeditz787 12 років тому +2

    brilliant.. best instructional i've come across. Thanks Pat!

  • @hemangnehra7389
    @hemangnehra7389 8 років тому +6

    Good old quotient rule and good old Patrickjmt's videos

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  13 років тому

    @Kn1ghtWing no problem : )

  • @pranosmii
    @pranosmii 7 років тому +2

    This guy has won my heart.

  • @JakeOfAllTrades17
    @JakeOfAllTrades17 12 років тому +1

    I can't believe how easy you make math, Patrick.

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  13 років тому

    @rainebf2 i'd give you full credit. just depends on the instructor. i have never been given a good reason as to why one needs to rationalize the denominator.

  • @patrickh6272
    @patrickh6272 7 років тому

    9 years old and still useful, thanx from the UK.

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  13 років тому

    @DeathG4n happy to help!

  • @MattOrrMusic
    @MattOrrMusic 13 років тому

    @Gooldude3 : when finding the derivative of the inner function with the chain rule,, you square the denominator and since the original denominator was raised to a 1/2 power, squaring that would mean multiplying those powers, and 1/2 times 2 leaves the denominator raised to the power of 1. Thats why it looks that way.

  • @incan87
    @incan87 7 років тому

    Impressive skills. Had to go back on a few parts to complete understand what you were doing but glad I watched this.

  • @Zestzima
    @Zestzima 13 років тому

    WOW, I'm so glad I came across your videos. Thanks so much, you saved the $35 an hour I would pay for a tutor!

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  14 років тому

    @rycecorl yea... the chain rule can be tricky at first! stick with it though - it will come to you

  • @flyboimomo121
    @flyboimomo121 13 років тому

    Wow. My teacher would try to explain this and I would be fine up until he would start factoring out. At that point I just get LOST. But everything You said made sense. Thank You sir.

  • @whitehawk38
    @whitehawk38 10 років тому +95

    i'm a 2nd year university student struggling with calculus. i'm sure most people watching these videos are just like me and have no means of buying a mercedes... so why are they putting ads here.

    • @ForeverMayur
      @ForeverMayur 10 років тому +19

      i'm in grade 12 lol definitely not buying a mercedes anytime soon...

    • @muk546
      @muk546 10 років тому +8

      the google ad's algorithm is shitty

    • @GN0MEz
      @GN0MEz 9 років тому +6

      whitehawk38 Why aren't you using adblock

    • @Okkio
      @Okkio 8 років тому +35

      So patric gets paid for his hard work! he deserves every single penny and more.

    • @grobbyman
      @grobbyman 8 років тому +12

      I'm 2nd year grad student and the mercedes ad has persuaded me on my next motor vehicle purchase. Leaving for dealership soon.

  • @jpm0021
    @jpm0021 12 років тому

    they are being multiplied. you can pull multipliers to the front and combine like terms which ends up being 2/2 or 1.

  • @HometownBro
    @HometownBro 13 років тому

    I've got probably the worst calculus AB teacher in existence, thank you so much for clearing everything up for me dude

  • @mycao2947
    @mycao2947 8 років тому

    thank you so much for the good videos.
    it makes the chain rule easier than the way my teacher explained.

  • @DoingStuffWithDiana
    @DoingStuffWithDiana 13 років тому

    Oh my goodness, I missed my class when we learned the chain rule. You are my hero. :l Thank you!

  • @ShistaMista666
    @ShistaMista666 13 років тому +1

    You are a godsend!

  • @Alissundruh
    @Alissundruh 12 років тому

    You have just made me semi confident for my next exam, thanks for the videos!

  • @mypinkdollprincess
    @mypinkdollprincess 14 років тому

    Thanks for putting these hard examples up! They're really helpful!

  • @robertmoore1430
    @robertmoore1430 12 років тому

    thanks sooo much for taking the time to make these video! I truly understand now

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  16 років тому

    no problem!

  • @mjkmommy
    @mjkmommy 11 років тому

    Your videos have REALLY helped me understand derivatives sooo much better! Thanks a million! Now, hopefully I won't space out on my exam today :-)

  • @rainebf2
    @rainebf2 13 років тому

    @patrickJMT yeah, so I asked, pretty much here in Australia "most simplified form" means that we have to rationalize the denominator for our final answer. So if the question on an exam was worth let's say 6 marks, and you wrote as your answer 1/root2 instead of root2/2, you'd only get 5/6 marks. That's just the way the state marks so the teachers drill into us to rationalize or otherwise we'll lose dumb marks :/.

  • @shell3202
    @shell3202 16 років тому

    think of factoring like dividing and you want to divide the common factor with the smallest exponent from each term.....so since -1/2 is smaller than 1/2, you divide out the (x^2+1)^-1/2.....so, when you divide (x^2+1)^1/2 by (x^2+1)^-1/2 you just subtract the exponents: 1/2-(-1/2) = 1/2+1/2 = 1....so that's why you're just left with x^2+1....
    hope that made sense! =)

  • @mikihinna
    @mikihinna 13 років тому

    Thanks for making all these videos! They've really been helping me a lot in my calculus class! I have one question i was wondering if you could help me with though!
    " use the product rule and the chain rule to prove the quotient rule"

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  14 років тому

    @ItsJad ha, glad my stuff makes sense for you

  • @asdfbhjfgsdfdjkcv
    @asdfbhjfgsdfdjkcv 12 років тому

    ok so for that part he is trying to find g' when g is (x^2+1)^1/2, and to differentiate this you use the (i think chain rule) so do this you bring the power to the front, the 1/2, multiply this by what's in the the brackets but put it to the same power as before -1 so (x^2+1)^-1/2 and then you differentiate what's inside the brackets which becomes 2x and multiply the three things together so it is 1/2(x^2 + 1)^-1/2(2x) which is what the guy got as well, I hope i explained this well enough

  • @hollyhobbit12
    @hollyhobbit12 12 років тому

    Fractions are way less scary now. My hero!

  • @PBUH03
    @PBUH03 12 років тому

    definition of awesome: patrickJMT
    your saving my ass dude big props i was just wondering do you basically cover all of grade 12 calculus?

  • @c0tor1r
    @c0tor1r 15 років тому +1

    So true!! The calculus is EASY. I just lost a lot of points on a test because of the algebra part.

  • @karenroman290
    @karenroman290 11 років тому +3

    How did you get 2x in the quotient rule if the formula for the numerator states:
    g (x) f`(x)-f (x)g`(x)
    And you wrote:
    g (x) f`(x)-f(x)g'(x) g''(x)

    • @karenroman290
      @karenroman290 10 років тому

      Never mind I understand, in order to take the derivative of g(x) you must use the chain rule

  • @missamythist
    @missamythist 12 років тому

    Thank you! I always freeze up when it comes to quotients and radicals, very tricky they are!

  • @marcushines4172
    @marcushines4172 9 років тому +3

    When he factor out the numerator, where do all the terms go. I don't see how they cancelled and I'm sure it's right in front of my face. How are we only left with ONE (x^2+1)^1/2 term when factoring. Shouldn't there be a 1 left on the inside to multiply by..???

  • @lumiere4460
    @lumiere4460 8 років тому

    Why did you bring (x^2 + 1)^-1/2 down to the denominator (4:53)? I didn't know you could do that.

    • @lumiere4460
      @lumiere4460 8 років тому

      Actually...I can see why. I would have never thought of that step on my own though.

  • @lennlin6
    @lennlin6 15 років тому

    just wondering..instead of factoring out the [(x^2+1)^-1/2], why cant you bring it down to the denominator, make the exponent positive and cancel it with the exact terms that are in the numerator?

  • @goodoldrebel8
    @goodoldrebel8 13 років тому

    Nice video, like any worthwhile subject, the chain rule takes practice.

  • @ajeje1996
    @ajeje1996 8 років тому

    4:54 how come do you pull (x^2+1)^-1/2 down? EDIT: NVM, got it (it's ^-1/2, so by removing the - we move the whole piece to the denominator)

  • @dominikb12
    @dominikb12 12 років тому

    @1:48 Patrick takes the denominator up in the numerator but leaves 1/2 in the exponent. Should it not have been ^-1/2?

  • @mkayzondy
    @mkayzondy 7 років тому

    Thank you soo much for this video

  • @GhamTk
    @GhamTk 14 років тому

    i love u man.....hw+studing=5minutes

  • @BuCxNaStY
    @BuCxNaStY 16 років тому

    Writing the function with 1/2 on the outside is the equivalence of the square root of the function. They're both the same.

  • @DeathG4n
    @DeathG4n 13 років тому

    Wow these video's are really well done, thanks

  • @EytanWallace
    @EytanWallace 12 років тому

    Why at 2:25 did you take the derivative of the already differentiated 1/2(x^2 +1)^-1/2 ?

  • @sportbikesrr
    @sportbikesrr 11 років тому +1

    on the quotient rule, did you forgot to square the denominator ?

  • @harmanbans
    @harmanbans 7 років тому

    So I understand everything about how chain rule works, but I just don't understand WHEN you shoukd use it. Is it used any time you are taking the derivative of something that has an exponent other than 1, since then it's basically like an outside-inside function?

  • @Stas1987D
    @Stas1987D 12 років тому

    i think an easier way to think about it, is: x³′ = 3x²*1 , the 1 is x` so that you won't forget the inner part in more complicated derivatives..

  • @Stain3610
    @Stain3610 11 років тому

    Thanks Patrick, I have found your video's really helpful. Big ups to you for your contribution to humanity ! :P

  • @kizhana
    @kizhana 13 років тому

    You are a Genius.. Thanks a lot for your amazing videos PatrickJMT..:D You are awesome..:)

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  13 років тому

    @rainebf2 i do not see why it matters.

  • @Moemenk
    @Moemenk 13 років тому

    @yodellikeyoumeanit09 when u multiply x^-1 and x^2 you get x^1....you add powers.. so he essentially multiplied x^-1/2 and x^1 ... 1- 1/2= 1/2 which is what was originally given. I am sure in Calculus 1 or beginning calc you can get by without simplifying so much but hey, if its possible do it.

  • @caandsa1
    @caandsa1 14 років тому

    Would I be able to use the rules of natural logs for this problem?

  • @karandeepdps1
    @karandeepdps1 11 років тому

    He took that exponent in denominator so
    it was: (x^2+1).(x^2+1).(x^2+1)^1/2..
    add powers of first two term i.e (x^2+1).(x^2+1) = {(x^2+1)^2}
    Now we have {(x^2+1)^2}.(x^2+1)^1/2.
    Now similarly add powers
    to get:(x^2+1)^5/2
    Regards
    Karan Dhillon :)

  • @daphne10120
    @daphne10120 9 років тому

    Thank you! You do a really good job explaining what to do!

  • @asdfbhjfgsdfdjkcv
    @asdfbhjfgsdfdjkcv 13 років тому

    @con5tant because 1/2 times 2X is X as its pretty much half times two which becomes one leaving the X, try it on your calculator or something 0.5 times 2 = 1

  • @toshrodriguez1991
    @toshrodriguez1991 15 років тому

    so much help. thanks a lot! you keep on inspiring me to become an engineer :D

  • @faresali3778
    @faresali3778 9 років тому +3

    what i did not understand when you took out (x ) i mean from 4:05 to 4:29 please answer me man >>>>>>tnx

  • @TBozgan
    @TBozgan Рік тому

    THIS CHAIN RULE IS SOME GODDAMN MIND BLOWING METHOD. IT DOES NOT MAKES ANY SENSE SO IT REALLY IRRITATES ME BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT: I WONT GİVE UP UNTIL I GOT THIS THING IN MY POCKET. STAY HARD AND WORK WITH YOUR ANGER, HUNGER AND AMBITION TO PROSPER. EITHER DO THIS OR KNEEL LIKE A COWARD CHICKEN.

  • @905Juelz
    @905Juelz 11 років тому

    Thanks man, great help.. ps. my teacher doesn't allow radicals in the denominator.. but very informative!

  • @gymnastickitty
    @gymnastickitty 12 років тому

    Can you use the outside inside rule for all chain rules? because my teacher showed us this this rule and U-sub. and I prefer the outside inside rule.

  • @josephbernabei6732
    @josephbernabei6732 8 років тому

    Hello!, I am taking a Calc 2 class this upcoming fall. I took a Calc 1 class a couple years ago and haven't practiced much with math since. Does anyone have any study suggestions on material I should focus on before the class starts to freshen up on?

  • @jamisondrapeau9673
    @jamisondrapeau9673 9 років тому

    4:25 if you added the exponents... wouldn't it be zero...? Or does the negative sign flip or something.

    • @aamirabdulsalam
      @aamirabdulsalam 9 років тому

      +Jamison Drapeau -1/2 and +1/2 cancel each other and we are left with (x^2+1)

    • @devonfunk5991
      @devonfunk5991 8 років тому

      It's (2/1)*(1/2)

  • @rainebf2
    @rainebf2 13 років тому

    @patrickJMT in terms of an exam response / test response, i know that in our class at least (year 12 maths) we'd lose a mark for not rationalizing the answer.

  • @jeannytorres2535
    @jeannytorres2535 9 років тому

    Great job explaining the steps. You really helped me, Thanks!!!!

  • @rehmanarshad1848
    @rehmanarshad1848 7 років тому +1

    Why did I not find this sooner?

  • @patrickjmt
    @patrickjmt  13 років тому +2

    @Zestzima you can make a $5 donation now ;)

  • @suhas2050
    @suhas2050 11 років тому

    In ur final answer could u simplify the square root and the power five and get the eqaution ^3? Does that work or is that illegal? Does that make sense?

  • @swofozu9975
    @swofozu9975 2 роки тому

    To make this easier you can use the natural log properties

  • @jacob11222
    @jacob11222 12 років тому

    How did you get 2x at the end while doing the quotient rule of the inside?????

  • @lachimkalleda1423
    @lachimkalleda1423 4 роки тому

    Thanks for making video please upload more video regarding this topic

  • @Mikeystonet
    @Mikeystonet 9 років тому

    Thank you! This was much needed!

  • @denisec9178
    @denisec9178 7 років тому

    when you multiply the two fractions with each other why do you multiply their bottoms as well? for example when you multiply 3/2 and 4/2 wouldn't you normally have gotten 12/2 instead of 12/4??

  • @rainebf2
    @rainebf2 13 років тому

    you have a surd in the denominator, shouldn't you rationalize the denominator for your final answer?

  • @annotheradbenture
    @annotheradbenture 14 років тому

    thanks dude! you gave me hope on passing my subject.. :D

  • @FilipexLaU
    @FilipexLaU 13 років тому

    Hi Patrick! Great video, thanks for sharing! I'd like to point out a smile mistake however...@ 2:30 (0.5^2 is not = 1 it's 0.25).

  • @johnparks6936
    @johnparks6936 9 років тому

    Im so confused... After using the chain rule the first time we still end up with a square root in our answer. Doesn't that mean we must use the chain rule again (eg. multiply by the derivative of the radicand)?

    • @thespyisaspy
      @thespyisaspy 9 років тому

      +John Parks There isn't anything wrong with having a radical in our answer here. After we've undergone all the steps he's illustrated in the video, we're done finding the derivative, and there's nothing left to do

    • @johnparks6936
      @johnparks6936 9 років тому

      I see. I always have trouble figuring out when to stop using the chain rule! Thank you for your help though!

  • @rishikseth818
    @rishikseth818 6 років тому

    Have a doubt. Why did you put 2x at last in the second step?

  • @755hp
    @755hp 15 років тому

    Beautiful!! This really is a big help!!

  • @eggxecution
    @eggxecution 6 років тому

    6:17 ummm, wasn't the square root supposed to be removed from the denominator? I thought that there should be no square roots in the denominator?