| Thread Closed |
Could someone explains what's gone wrong here? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| May25-08, 07:29 AM | #1 |
|
|
Could someone explains what's gone wrong here?
I just read this on another forum
'We know that the derivative of x^2 with respect to x is 2x. However, what if we rewrite x^2 as the sum of x x's, and then take the derivative: d/dx[ x^2 ] = d/dx[ x + x + x + ... (x times) ] = d/dx[x] + d/dx[x] + d/dx[x] ... (x times) = 1 + 1 + 1 + ... (x times) = x This argument shows that the derivative of x^2 with respect to x is actually x. So what's going on here?' Wheres the mistake? :P |
| May25-08, 07:38 AM | #2 |
|
Recognitions:
|
What happens if x is not a positive integer? What if x is negative or a fraction like 1/2? How would it evaluate?
However, that's not all that's wrong with this argument. Are you familiar with the definition of the derivative? If you are, then take a closer look at the definition to see if this method is still valid under the original fundamental definition. |
| May25-08, 12:11 PM | #3 |
|
|
The function
[tex]f(x)= 5x= (5+ 5\c+ 5 \cdot\cdot\cdot+ 5)[itex] {x times} is a function of x: your method would say [itex]f'(x)= (0+ 0+ 0\cdot\cdot\cdot+ 0)= 0[/itex] which is, of course, not true. [itex]f(x)= x^2= (x+ x+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ x)[/itex] {x times} is a function of x in two ways. You have not taken into account the "x times" part of the function. |
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Could someone explains what's gone wrong here?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Which interpretation best explains the classical limit? | Quantum Physics | 4 | ||
| could general relativity be right simply because it explains gravity? | Special & General Relativity | 16 | ||
| Lenses/Mirrors - anyone have a website that explains how these work? | Introductory Physics Homework | 0 | ||
| Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and Bush's Desert Shield Jr. | Current Events | 6 | ||