University Calculus: Early Transcendentals (3rd Edition)

Published by Pearson
ISBN 10: 0321999584
ISBN 13: 978-0-32199-958-0

Chapter 3 - Section 3.6 - The Chain Rule - Exercises - Page 160: 104


This case does not contradict the Chain Rule.

Work Step by Step

We revisit what is claimed in the Chain Rule: - If $f(u)$ is differentiable at $u=g(x)$. - If $g(x)$ is differentiable at $x$. $\Rightarrow$ $(fog)(x)$ is differentiable at $x$. But it does not claim the way around. In other words, if $f(u)$ is differentiable at $u=g(x)$ and $g(x)$ is differentiable at $x$, then $(fog)(x)$ is definitely differentiable at $x$; but if $(fog)(x)$ is differentiable at $x$, then it is not necessary that $f(u)$ must be differentiable at $u=g(x)$ or $g(x)$ must be differentiable at $x$. The Chain Rule is not a rule for the conditions of differentiability. Applying to this exercise, we see an example that while $(fog)(x)$ and $(gof)(x)$ are both differentiable at $x=0$, it does not have to be true that $g(x)$ must be differentiable at $x=0$ also. In conclusion, this case does not contradict the Chain Rule.
Update this answer!

You can help us out by revising, improving and updating this answer.

Update this answer

After you claim an answer you’ll have 24 hours to send in a draft. An editor will review the submission and either publish your submission or provide feedback.