Talk:List of differentiation identities

message: Derivative of arcoth in this page seems to be wrong.
It think this should be right derivative:
[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.146.71 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: Thw "Constant Multiple Rule" Seems to be directly consequential of the Chain Rule, so I'll remove it. Anyone with objections, feel free to revert. He Who Is 01:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can get it quickly from the Chain Rule, but I think it's best to keep it because it's a common occurrence. Also, I don't think any treatment of differentiation would first prove the Chain Rule and then prove this rule. Finally, this rule is part of the statement that differentiation is linear. I'm going to put the rule back in, but under the "Linearity" heading instead of its own. Eric119 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant Multiple Rule 

message: Woudnt it be more appropriate to say that the derivative of cos a(x) = -a sin a(x), rather than just cos(x) = -sin(x)? --DragonFly31
Why is that an improvement? Eric119 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is more something like: d(cos a(x))/dx = - d(a(x))/dx . sin a(x). But you are right DragonFly31, it's better than considering the parameter of the cosine function as a constant, which is just a particular case.JeDi 08:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with Grunther4. I think we should put all of the common functions up like e^(ax) -> a e^(ax), cos(ax) -> -a sin(x), and  a^x -> ln(a) a^x. This is a table where you're supposed to be able to look up derivates quickly, not deduce them from each other.
Agreed! This page gives you false formulae given that it takes the appereance of a quick reference page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.66.13 (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement 

message: Seems to be that Techniques for differentiation contains a subset of the content that this page does, and the two combined make for something fairly redundant.Noodle snacks (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it probably should, too. And besides, there isn't much "technique" to differentiation other than those already shown on other pages and Techniques for differentiation doesn't differ much from the table except that it contains more explanations. --Bobianite (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Against. I prefer the table w/o the explanations. I found it very helpful when I had to deal with lengthy differentiation problems. I take a quick look and I find the formula I need. If we flood the article with text and explanations, it will become much more difficult to use. Logain2006 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Against. For the same reasons as above (it would become to cluttered if explanations were added) --Fintelia (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Yeah. Let's merge. This is and always will be duplicate information.  dmyersturnbull   ⇒ talk 20:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merge 

message: The derivative of an integral should be included. 76.69.254.51 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: the derivative of an integral

message: Should proofs be included?  I've got pdfs that I've worked out over the years and would be happy to provide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.238.85 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: proofs

message: Hello guys, I propose we include this formula into this section.
: \frac{\partial^{n}x}{\partial x}=x^{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{}^{i}x-1}\ln^{n-1}x+\sum_{i=0}^{n-2}x^{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{}^{i}x-1}\ln^{n-2-i}x 
It should be included because tetration is the next operation in the sequence: addition, multiplication, exponentiation. The derivative for the first three operations are all listed, why not the fourth one? 
The proof is given in this document: http://the-genius-group-from-uc-berkeley.googlegroups.com/web/Tetration+Differentiation.pdf?gda=6aA6-FAAAABSYOl_jrsF0EsfPlz6r_UHme_1TQtU2s7OrsZ-qmqDmy7Bkztxd_iq36Pd9mTrcVLHCtiTK2Zr7UgM-Mu5crp8bcVT3VtYGKLco-_l-8AzjQ
I know some of you may say this is "original research." But a mathematical fact is a fact regardless of who did the research, right?
Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.249.252 (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiation of the tetration tower