Test Question #7
Test Question #7
U(x) = (8x + 4)^11 (7x2 + 9x – 4)^3
This problem requires both the product rule and the chain rule.
U’(x) = ((8x + 4)^11) (3(7x2 + 9x – 4)^2 (14x + 9) + ((7x2 + 9x – 4)^2) (11(8x + 4)^10) (8)
So, In words…
It is the first half (8x + 4)^11
Times the derivative of the 2nd half (7x2 + 9x – 4)^3 [Remember chain rule!!]
Added to
The 2nd half (7x2 + 9x – 4)^3
Times the derivative of the fist half
ALL SET!!!
O, by the way, all of these equations looked absolutely brillant on my incredible MAC, but seeing as blogger is biased against MACs, and gives undeserved preferential treatment to PCs, my equation now looks like I am a 5th grade computer skills failure. Just thought you might want to know.
-Lauren
posted by lauren @ 10:51 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Uh, whatever. The entire civilized world knows that PCs are better than Macs. Only weird computer geeks use them(now, these are geeks, not nerds. If they were nerds, then I would like them. For those of you who are reading this, which is probably no one, Vons and I have created a nerd hierarchy: nerds are cool, geeks are lame, and dorks are REALLY lame. We are both nerds of course, not geeks or dorks.) Anyway, Macs are for losers, Vons. And you like Macs. Therefore, by TRANSITIVE PROPERTY (Everyone better be pumped about that math reference...even though it's not actual Transitive Property, because in actual Transitive Property Losers would have to EQUAL Macs, and Macs would have to EQUAL Lauren, for Lauren to be a loser. So this is a loose real-world application that is merely transitive-like, not actually pure transitive), you are a loser. But I already knew that. That was just my proof. Like in Mr. J's class, when you wrote on your homework "I don't do proofs." Well I do and I just proved you are a loser. You are lucky Blogger even ALLOWS Mac postings. I love you!
If I just went through all of that work to write you a funny comment and you don't even READ it, I am going to be REALLLLLLY mad at you.
Do you see those two deleted comments up there? Those were me. I kept revising my comment and deleting the old one. Yes, I know, I may have to be demoted from nerd to geek. Or even from geek to dork. Yikes.
Hmmm..... Say Kristin, did you ever notice what type of laptop your calculus teacher uses?
So I'm trying to follow your reasoning. You say that you are both cool, being nerds (which of course I am - how else would you describe a high school calculus teacher that likes country music?), yet Lauren is a loser. Can you be a cool loser?
Yes, Mr. French. You can definitely be a cool loser. Loser falls outside of the nerd hierarchy. You can also be a lame loser. Because loser and lame are not permanent states of being, they are more like labels affixed to only certain actions or minor personality traits. For example, when I say "Lauren guess what I did. I redid my entire spanish homework because I thought it was messy," she responds, "you are SUCH A LOSER." Now, she's not actually referring to my entire personality, because then she wouldn't be friends with me. She is just referring to this specific action and this specific trait (which is me being obsessively perfectionista at times). So yes, you can be a cool loser.
uhh...how do you know that she wouldn't be friends with you if you were a loser? that...is the question
i can't believe you guys are going on in like a heated debate about calculus things haha
You know what's funny? I wrote "I don't do proofs" on my Geometry homework too a couple times...and now I have to do them almost daily for the Geometry kids that I tutor. How's that for karma?
KARMA!
Post a Comment
<< Home