Did I Apply the Derivative Rule Incorrectly for x²?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Suraj M
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the derivative rule for the function x², particularly focusing on the confusion surrounding the differentiation process and the interpretation of summation in relation to derivatives. Participants explore various methods of differentiation, including the product rule and first principles, while addressing misconceptions in the original approach.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to derive d/dx (x²) by expressing it as a sum of x added to itself x times, leading to confusion about the derivative.
  • Another participant corrects the initial claim that 2² = (2+2), asserting it should be 2*2, prompting a discussion about the validity of the summation approach.
  • Some participants argue that the expression x² should be treated as x * x, leading to the correct derivative of 2x using the product rule.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of treating x as an integer in the context of differentiation, particularly when using limits.
  • A later reply discusses the need to account for the last x in the summation, indicating a misunderstanding in the original differentiation approach.
  • One participant expresses confusion about why the common method of applying the derivative operator directly does not yield the same result as their summation approach.
  • Another participant suggests that the differentiation of a summation involving non-integer values of x may require a different approach, potentially involving the chain rule.
  • There is a proposal to extend the definition of summation to non-integer values, raising further questions about the applicability of differentiation in such cases.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct method for differentiating x², with multiple competing views on the validity of using summation and the treatment of x as an integer. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to take.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their reasoning, particularly concerning the treatment of x in expressions and the implications of differentiating sums that may not be well-defined for non-integer values. There is also uncertainty about the application of the chain rule in this context.

Suraj M
Gold Member
Messages
596
Reaction score
39
i just started with calculus. There was this question my teacher asked us
d/dx (x²) = 2x ... eq 1
now we can write 2² = (2+2)
3² = (3+3+3)
4²=(4+4+4+4)
.
.
.
n² = (n+n+n+n+...)n times
so here d/dx (x²) = d/dx (x+x+x+...)x times
so ⇒ d/dx (x) +d/dx(x) +...(x times) = 1+1+1+...(x times) = x
⇒d/dx (x²) = x
where did I go wrong??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suraj M said:
i just started with calculus. There was this question my teacher asked us
d/dx (x²) = 2x ... eq 1
now we can write 2² = (2+2)
3² = (3+3+3)
4²=(4+4+4+4)
.
.
.
n² = (n+n+n+n+...)n times
so here d/dx (x²) = d/dx (x+x+x+...)x times
so ⇒ d/dx (x) +d/dx(x) +...(x times) = 1+1+1+...(x times) = x
⇒d/dx (x²) = x
where did I go wrong??

When you wrote 2² = (2+2). 2² = (2*2)
 
berkeman said:
When you wrote 2² = (2+2). 2² = (2*2)
i never said that! Did I?
 
You said this in your original post (OP):

Suraj M said:
now we can write 2² = (2+2)

Which I corrected to 2*2...
 
berkeman said:
When you wrote 2² = (2+2). 2² = (2*2)
But it's also true that 22 = 2 + 2, and that 32 = 3 + 3 + 3
 
Mark44 said:
But it's also true that 22 = 2 + 2, and that 32 = 3 + 3 + 3

Oh, huh. Yeah, I guess it is. Okay, never mind...
 
It's true that 22 = 2 + 2, and 32 = 3 + 3 + 3, but what do you do with an expression such as 1.12? Can you have 1.1 terms being added together? That makes no sense.

The right way to do this is to recognize that x2 = x * x. Now d/dx(x2) = 2x, and d/dx(x * x) = x * 1 + 1 * x = 2x, using the product rule in differentiating.
 
Suraj M said:
i just started with calculus. There was this question my teacher asked us
d/dx (x²) = 2x ... eq 1
now we can write 2² = (2+2)
3² = (3+3+3)
4²=(4+4+4+4)
.
.
.
n² = (n+n+n+n+...)n times
so here d/dx (x²) = d/dx (x+x+x+...)x times
so ⇒ d/dx (x) +d/dx(x) +...(x times) = 1+1+1+...(x times) = x
⇒d/dx (x²) = x
where did I go wrong??
d/dx (x+x+x+...)x times needs to take into account x times, which you did not.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Intrastellar and Fredrik
Suraj M said:
where did I go wrong??
By definition of derivative, we have
$$\frac{d}{dx}x^2 =\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^2-x^2}{h}.$$ That ##x## may be an integer, but the value of the expression on the right is completely determined by the values of ##\frac{(x+h)^2-x^2}{h}## for non-zero values of ##h## in the interval ##(-1,1)## (or any other open interval that contains ##0##). So for all relevant values of ##h##, the sum ##x+h## isn't an integer.

mathman said:
d/dx (x+x+x+...)x times needs to take into account x times, which you did not.
My first thought was that he did, by writing ##1+1+\cdots+1=x##. But you're right. We're differentiating with respect to x, so we can't treat any x in the expression as a constant.
\begin{align}
&\frac{d}{dx}x^2 =\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{ (x+h+x+h+\cdots)_{x+h\text{ times}}-(x+x+\cdots)_{x\text{ times}}}{h} =\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+x+\cdots)_{h\text{ times}}+(h+h+\cdots)_{x+h\text{ times}}}{h}\\
&\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{hx+(x+h)h}{h} = x+\lim_{h\to 0}(x+h)= x+x=2x.
\end{align}
Edit: I should add that this calculation doesn't really make sense. Specifically, the notations "x+h times" and "h times" don't make sense, since h isn't an integer. This calculation is at best a reason to suspect that ##\frac{d}{dx}x^2=2x##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Suraj M and DrewD
  • #10
Thank you , all for those replies, thank you Fredrick for that first principle method, by my question still stands,I understand that by first principle and using x²=(x+x+x+...+x)x times we still get 2x but then why not by the common method of directly applying the operator. Is there some rule I'm violating?
PS. I'm sorry if you already mentioned it and i missed it!
 
  • #11
Suraj M said:
Thank you , all for those replies, thank you Fredrick for that first principle method, by my question still stands,I understand that by first principle and using x²=(x+x+x+...+x)x times we still get 2x but then why not by the common method of directly applying the operator. Is there some rule I'm violating?
PS. I'm sorry if you already mentioned it and i missed it!
The main problem was identified by mathman. You didn't correctly account for the last x in ##(x+x+\cdots)_{x\text{ times}}##. In other words, what you did isn't equivalent to defining f by ##f(x)=(x+x+\cdots)_{x\text{ times}}## and then computing ##f'(x)##. It's equivalent to defining ##f(x,y)=(x+x+\cdots)_{y\text{ times}}## and then computing the partial derivative ##D_1f(x,x)##.
 
  • #12
oh ok i understood.! Thank you all.
 
  • #13
Fredrik said:
By definition of derivative, we have
$$\frac{d}{dx}x^2 =\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^2-x^2}{h}.$$ That ##x## may be an integer, but the value of the expression on the right is completely determined by the values of ##\frac{(x+h)^2-x^2}{h}## for non-zero values of ##h## in the interval ##(-1,1)## (or any other open interval that contains ##0##). So for all relevant values of ##h##, the sum ##x+h## isn't an integer.My first thought was that he did, by writing ##1+1+\cdots+1=x##. But you're right. We're differentiating with respect to x, so we can't treat any x in the expression as a constant.
\begin{align}
&\frac{d}{dx}x^2 =\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{ (x+h+x+h+\cdots)_{x+h\text{ times}}-(x+x+\cdots)_{x\text{ times}}}{h} =\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+x+\cdots)_{h\text{ times}}+(h+h+\cdots)_{x+h\text{ times}}}{h}\\
&\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{hx+(x+h)h}{h} = x+\lim_{h\to 0}(x+h)= x+x=2x.
\end{align}
Is there a way to find
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dx} \sum_{1}^{x} f(x)
\end{align}
without calculating the sum explicitly ?
 
Last edited:
  • #14
montadhar said:
Is there a way to find
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dx} \sum_{1}^{x} f(x)
\end{align}
without calculating the sum explicitly ?
You'd have to define the notation before you can start thinking about how to find the number it represents.
 
  • #15
Fredrik said:
You'd have to define the notation before you can start thinking about how to find the number it represents.
I realized that shortly after I made my post.

Surely one cannot differentiate factorials ? They have values only when ## x ## is an integer, continuous does not even make sense there when you try to plot it.
However, one can extend the definition of factorials to the gamma function, which one can actually differentiate.

I suppose for my question to make sense, I have to first ask whether there is a way to extend the definition of summation to non-integer values of ##x## ?
Then my question becomes whether one can apply some sort of a chain rule so that one can evaluate the derivative of the extended summation without needing to evaluate the summation first.

If I understood the OP's question correctly, he has the following:

\begin{align}
\sum_{k=1}^{x} x = x^2
\end{align}
But when he tries to calculate the derivatives of both sides, he doesn't get matching answers. I presume that is because there is some hidden chain rule which he is not applying ?

My guess would be that when he differentiates ## (x+x+x+...)_x ##, he has to apply the chain rule this way:
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dx} (x+x+x+...)_x = (\frac{d}{dx}[x+x+x+...] )_x + (x+x+x+...)_\frac{d(x)}{dx}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&= (1+1+1+...)_x + (x+x+x+...)_1
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&= x + x
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&=2x
\end{align}
Is that correct ?
 
Last edited:
  • #16
montadhar said:
My guess would be that when he differentiates ## (x+x+x+...)_x ##, he has to apply the chain rule this way:
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dx} (x+x+x+...)_x = (\frac{d}{dx}[x+x+x+...] )_x + (x+x+x+...)_\frac{d(x)}{dx}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
What did you do here Montadhar?
I didn't understand the way you applied the operator (d/dx)..
Is this some other rule, that I'm not aware of??
 
  • #17
in "so here d/dx (x²) = d/dx (x+x+x+...)x times" there is no guarantee that x is an integer, so "x times" is ill defined.
 
  • #18
Suraj M said:
What did you do here Montadhar?
I didn't understand the way you applied the operator (d/dx)..
Is this some other rule, that I'm not aware of??
Do you mean why did I differentiate the 'x-times' in this expression ?
\begin{align}
(x+x+x+...)_\frac{d(x)}{dx}
\end{align}
mathman and Fredrik said earlier that you differentiated as if the 'x-times' was a constant, which is why you got the wrong result.
So I was trying to come up with a way that does not use 'x-times' as a constant, but takes it into account too when you differentiate. So I used some kind of a product rule as a guess, and it turns out that it gave the right answer in this case.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K