Second-order derivatives
Differentiate a function once and you learn its rate of change. Differentiate it again and you learn how that rate of change is itself changing — the second-order derivative, written or . It closes out the Continuity and Differentiability chapter by asking you to reuse every tool built earlier — the chain rule, implicit differentiation, logarithmic differentiation, parametric differentiation — one extra time. The computation is mechanically simple: differentiate, then differentiate the result. What takes practice is doing this correctly when is not written as a bare formula in — when it is tangled up in an implicit relation, or split across a parameter . This article walks through all three settings: explicit, implicit, and parametric, with one fully-solved example in each style that you can use as a template.
The second-order derivative is found by differentiating a function's first derivative a second time, with the exact technique — direct, implicit, or via a parameter — matching however was originally given.
The core idea
Given , call the first derivative . The second-order derivative is what you get by differentiating once more with respect to :
where: is the original function, is its first derivative (itself a function of ), and is the derivative of that derivative. The syllabus asks you to compute this in three settings, and the technique changes with the setting.
Explicit functions. If directly, there is nothing new: differentiate to get , then differentiate again to get . Every differentiation rule you already know — power, product, quotient, chain — applies at each stage independently.
Implicit relations. When and are tangled together in one equation, the first derivative itself usually contains (and sometimes appears on both sides after simplification). To get the second derivative, differentiate that first-derivative expression with respect to once more — applying the chain rule to every -term as — and then substitute back the already-known expression for to simplify the result purely in terms of and .
Parametric curves. If and , first find as a function of in the usual parametric way. Then treat that expression as a new "-like" quantity depending on only through , and apply the same chain-rule move used to get the first derivative:
where: the numerator is the -derivative of the already-found , and the denominator is again — the same one used in step one. Differentiating with respect to and stopping there, without dividing by , is the single most common parametric mistake.
The core idea, continued: why the parametric formula is not a new rule
Once is written as a function of , it depends on only indirectly, through . Finding its derivative with respect to therefore needs exactly the same conversion used for the first derivative: differentiate with respect to (the rate "per unit "), then divide by to convert it into a rate "per unit ." Seen this way, the second-order parametric formula is the same idea applied twice, not a separate rule to memorise.
The goal of this derivation is to show, starting only from the definition and the ordinary chain rule for a function of a parameter, exactly why for a parametric curve , works out to be the -derivative of divided once more by , rather than simply the -derivative of on its own.
Step 1. Start from the first-derivative stage, which you already know: for a parametric curve, , obtained by treating and as both varying with and using the chain rule , then solving for . Call this ratio ; it is a specific function of , found once and reused below.
Step 2. By definition, the second derivative is — the derivative of with respect to . But is written as a function of , not , so this derivative cannot be taken directly; it must go through using the chain rule, exactly as any function of is differentiated with respect to .
Step 3. Apply the chain rule the same way it was applied in Step 1: . Since , this becomes .
Step 4. Substitute back to read off the final formula: . The division by is not optional bookkeeping — it is the same conversion factor from "per unit " to "per unit " used in Step 1, applied a second time because is itself a quantity that only depends on through .
Worked example
Find if .
Step 1. Find the first derivative by differentiating term by term:
Step 2. Differentiate the first derivative once more to get the second derivative:
Step 3. State and check the result. So . At , this evaluates to , consistent with being the midpoint of the cubic's turning behaviour (a fact examined further, using concavity, in the next chapter — not required here). Final answer: .
Competitive stretch
Find if (an implicit relation).
Step 1. Differentiate both sides implicitly with respect to : , which gives .
Step 2. Differentiate again using the quotient rule, treating as a function of so that :
Step 3. Substitute from Step 1 and simplify: .
Step 4. Use the original relation to finish: . Final answer: .
Common traps
- Not substituting the first derivative back in for an implicit relation — leaving expressed in terms of instead of purely and .
- Differentiating directly with respect to for a parametric curve, instead of with respect to followed by division by — the single most common parametric error.
- Sign and arithmetic slips carried over from the first derivative into the second, since any early error compounds through the second round of differentiation.
- Assuming the answer must simplify to something "neat." Many correct second derivatives remain moderately complex expressions in , , or ; do not over-simplify or suspect an error just because the algebra stays busy.
Ask the tutor: if the parametric "differentiate then divide again" pattern still feels slippery, ask the AI tutor to work through one more parametric example with you, step by step.
Why does the second derivative of an implicit relation need substitution at the end, but an explicit one does not?
For an explicit function , differentiating twice gives an answer purely in automatically, since never appears on the right-hand side. For an implicit relation, the first differentiation step produces in terms of both and , and differentiating that expression again naturally reintroduces inside the working (via the product or quotient rule). Substituting the known formula for back in is what removes it, leaving a final answer in and only — skipping this step leaves the answer only partially simplified.
Why can't I just differentiate dy/dx with respect to t for a parametric curve and stop there?
Because , once written as a function of , is still a rate measured "per unit ," not "per unit ." Differentiating it with respect to gives you how fast that ratio changes as increases, which is a different quantity from how fast it changes as increases. Dividing by converts the rate back into "per unit " terms, exactly as it did when you first built from and . Skipping this division is the most common parametric second-derivative mistake.
Do I need to know about concavity or curve sketching to answer second-order derivative questions?
No. In this chapter, computing is a purely computational exercise in reapplying differentiation rules — explicit, implicit, or parametric — one extra time. The geometric meaning of the second derivative, such as concavity (whether a curve bends upward or downward) and its use in locating maxima and minima, is developed in the next chapter, Applications of Derivatives. You are not expected to interpret the sign of geometrically here, only to compute it correctly.