Derivative of \( \displaystyle x - \frac{\sin{\left(4 x \right)} \cos{\left(4 x \right)}}{4} \)
Problem 2.2070 · hard Beautiful
Differentiate \( \displaystyle f(x) = x - \frac{\sin{\left(4 x \right)} \cos{\left(4 x \right)}}{4} \).
- \[ \frac{d}{d x} \left(x - \frac{\sin{\left(4 x \right)} \cos{\left(4 x \right)}}{4}\right) \]derivativeStart with the derivative of the function.✓ Proved
- \[ = \frac{d}{d x} x - \frac{d}{d x} \frac{\sin{\left(4 x \right)} \cos{\left(4 x \right)}}{4} \]sumApply the sum rule.✓ Proved
- \[ = 1 - \frac{d}{d x} \frac{\sin{\left(4 x \right)} \cos{\left(4 x \right)}}{4} \]constantDifferentiate the first term.✓ Proved
- \[ = 1 - \frac{\frac{d}{d x} \sin{\left(4 x \right)} \cos{\left(4 x \right)}}{4} \]constant-multipleFactor out the constant 1/4.✓ Proved
- \[ = - \frac{\sin{\left(4 x \right)} \frac{d}{d x} \cos{\left(4 x \right)}}{4} - \frac{\cos{\left(4 x \right)} \frac{d}{d x} \sin{\left(4 x \right)}}{4} + 1 \]productApply the product rule.✓ Proved
- \[ = \sin^{2}{\left(4 x \right)} - \cos^{2}{\left(4 x \right)} + 1 \]chain algebra simplifyApply the chain rule to both terms. Simplify the terms inside the parentheses. Distribute the 1/4.✓ Proved
- \[ = 1 - \cos{\left(8 x \right)} \]rewrite simplify algebra simplifyUse the double angle identity cos(2*theta) = cos^2(theta) - sin^2(theta) with theta = 4x. Wait, the identity is cos(2*theta) = cos^2(theta) - sin^2(theta). Let's re-evaluate the identity step. The expression is 1 - cos(2*theta) where theta is 4x. Final simplification.✓ Proved
Answer \( 1 - \cos{\left(8 x \right)} \)
Every line of this solution was proved by the computer algebra system SymPy. The answer was also checked a second way, without looking at the solution. The reviewers disagree about how one step is explained; every verdict is in the receipt.
The full receipt
| Line | Status | Checked by | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | line 1 is the problem as stated |
| 2 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 3 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 4 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 5 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 6 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 7 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 8 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 9 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 10 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 11 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| 12 | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| answer | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | final line against the stated answer: simplify(a - b) reduced to 0 |
| answer, a second way | ✓ Proved | sympy 1.14.0 | SymPy differentiated f directly and got the stated answer |
Reviewers
gpt-oss:20b: fail (style) — Step 6 applies two chain rule applications in a single step, violating the rule that each step must change only one thing.qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (misleading) — Step 6 is labeled 'chain' but applies the chain rule to both terms of the product simultaneously; the contract requires steps to change only one thing. Additionally, steps 10-12 are redundant and confusing, as step 9 already correctly applied the double-angle identity.
Every verdict on record (4)
gpt-oss:20b: fail (style) 2026-10-11 — Step 6 applies two chain rule applications in a single step, violating the rule that each step must change only one thing.qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (misleading) 2026-10-11 — Step 6 is labeled 'chain' but applies the chain rule to both terms of the product simultaneously; the contract requires steps to change only one thing. Additionally, steps 10-12 are redundant and confusing, as step 9 already correctly applied the double-angle identity.gpt-oss:20b: pass 2026-10-11qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (style) 2026-10-11 — The solution contains redundant and confusing steps (10-12) where the solver 're-evaluates' a correct identity application, creating unnecessary noise. Additionally, Step 6 applies the chain rule to two distinct terms simultaneously, violating the one-rule-per-step constraint.
Proved: SymPy reduced the difference between the two sides to zero. Checked independently: a separate
method, named above, confirmed it. Checked numerically: the two sides agree at every sampled point, which is evidence,
not proof. Reviewed: a model or a person read it; that is all a sentence can have. Solution by
gemma4:26b, checked 2026-10-11 with SymPy 1.14.0.