New functions to differentiate, second derivatives when is only defined implicitly or through a parameter, and Maclaurin's series — a polynomial that imitates any function near the origin.
Note the missing minus. , but . Differentiating twice returns you to where you started, rather than flipping the sign — which is exactly why satisfies while satisfies .
The minus sign from does the work in both. For , the quotient rule gives
using .
Each is one chain rule away — for instance , so its derivative is . Rebuild them rather than memorising, and note that all three carry a minus sign.
Read the pattern: the trigonometric inverses give and ; the hyperbolic ones swap those signs over, giving , and .
Every one uses the same three steps: invert, differentiate implicitly, convert back to .
: then , so and
The positive square root is correct because the principal range is , where .
: then , so and , using . No sign worry here: for every .
: gives , positive because the principal branch has .
: gives , so .
Questions rarely give you a bare . With the chain rule,
Each drops out of times the basic derivative evaluated at . These are exactly the shapes that reappear as standard integrals in Topic 11, run backwards.
For , find in terms of .
Differentiating: , so . Now differentiate that with the quotient rule:
using the original equation at the last step. Substituting back in is the step candidates forget — leaving in the final answer scores nothing.
The curve passes through . Find and there.
Differentiate once, writing for and using the product rule on :
At : , so .
Now differentiate again — without rearranging it:
At with : , so .
No quotient rule anywhere. When a question asks for the second derivative at a point, this route is almost always faster.
Sometimes a rearrangement makes repeated differentiation trivial. For ,
Now every further derivative is pure algebra: , then , and so on — no trigonometry at all. This is exactly how the Maclaurin series of is built in .
Differentiate with respect to , then divide by . The chain rule demands it: , and is the reciprocal of .
That looks plausible and is wrong. Test it on : the fake formula gives , while the true answer is — not even the same shape. Differentiating a quotient is not the quotient of the derivatives.
For find .
and , so . Then
Check by eliminating : , so for , and ✓ since .
For , show that .
and , so
By the quotient rule, . Dividing by means multiplying by :
Each coefficient is a derivative evaluated at zero, divided by a factorial. MF19 also prints the standard expansions of , , , , , , and , with their ranges of validity — so quote those rather than re-deriving them.
You are never asked for the general term — only "the first few terms" or "as far as ".
Direct differentiation of gets horrible fast, so use from and differentiate that repeatedly:
Now evaluate at , where , carrying each value forward:
So
The even derivatives all vanish at , which they must: is an odd function, so only odd powers can appear. That parity check is free and catches a slip immediately.
Let , so . Then
By the quotient rule, and using to simplify the numerator:
so . That tidy form makes the next step easy:
Hence
Numerical check at : the series gives , and . ✓ The tiny gap is the term.
In the example above, spotting that collapses to turned a fearsome third differentiation into a one-liner. If a derivative looks unmanageable, it is usually a signal that an identity will collapse it — look for , , or a common factor.
Add terms one at a time and see the polynomial grip the curve near the origin, then peel away. The strip underneath checks every derivative formula in and against a numerical derivative — independent evidence that the table is right.
add another term ✎
equals:
. The minus belongs to , not — which is why satisfies rather than .
equals:
From : , so . The distractors are , and — all four are printed on MF19, so look rather than guess.
For , the value of is:
(which is the third option — the first derivative, a common misread). Then . The last option, , is what the incorrect would give.
The Maclaurin series of , as far as the term in , is:
With : , so the coefficient is . Sanity check at : and — close, and correctly above . The option is .
Let .
(i) Show that .
(ii) Hence find the Maclaurin series for as far as the term in .
(i) By the chain rule, . Differentiating again with the quotient rule:
Since , the numerator is , and one factor cancels:
(ii) Part (i) makes the third derivative easy — differentiate :
Now evaluate everything at , where and :
Substituting into :
Check at : the series gives , and — agreeing to five decimal places, with the discrepancy the size of the missing term. ✓