Does f'(0) exist? Does f'(x) exist for values of x other than 0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmyly
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiability of the function f(x) = |x| + x, specifically at the point x = 0 and for other values of x. Participants are exploring whether the derivative f'(0) exists and the behavior of f'(x) for x not equal to 0.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of the derivative using limits and the implications of left and right derivatives. There are attempts to clarify the behavior of the function at x = 0 and to understand the geometric interpretation of the derivative.

Discussion Status

The discussion includes various attempts to compute the derivative and clarify misunderstandings about the function's behavior at x = 0. Some participants have provided corrections and insights into the calculations, while others express confusion regarding the algebra involved. There is acknowledgment of the lack of agreement on the derivative's existence at x = 0.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the presence of a "sharp point" at x = 0 in the function |x|, which contributes to the discussion about the derivative's existence. There are also mentions of potential algebraic errors in the calculations presented.

jimmyly
Messages
191
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



f(x) = |x| + x
Does f'(0) exist? Does f'(x) exist for values of x other than 0?
This is from lang's a first course in calculus page 54 # 13


Homework Equations


lim (f(x+h) - f(x))/h
h->0


The Attempt at a Solution


So I'm not sure if I am doing this correctly
at first I took the derivative of f(x) = |x| + x

f(x) = |x| + x = √x^2 + x
from there

f'= lim h -> 0 (√(x+h)^2 + (x+h) - (√x^2 + x))/h
= x + h +x + h - x - x / h
= 2h/h
=2

I assumed this meant that f' = 2 but this doesn't make sense because there is no slope at x = 0

so I decided to take the right and left derivatives

right:
for x > 0, h>0
|x| = x
f'= (|x+h| + (x + h) - (|x| + x))/h = ((x+h) + (x + h) - ( x + x )) / h = 2

left:
for x < 0 , h < 0
|x| = -x

f' = (-(x+h) + (x + h) - (-x +x ))/h = -1

so my conclusion is that there is no derivative at x = 0 because the left and right derivatives do not equal.

I am not very confident in what I did here. If someone can help me understand it better I would really appreciate it!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
|x| does not have a derivative at zero due to the sharp point of the "V".
 
UltrafastPED said:
|x| does not have a derivative at zero due to the sharp point of the "V".

So how do I show that mathematically?
I understand that geometrically, but when I do problems like these I have a tough time doing it
 
also when I graph it out it only shows the right side / instead of V
I don't understand how I got the left derivative as -1 when there's nothing on the left
 
jimmyly said:

Homework Statement



f(x) - |x| + x
Typo - should be f(x) =[/color] |x| + x.
jimmyly said:
Does f'(0) exist? Does f'(x) exist for values of x other than 0?
This is from lang's a first course in calculus page 54 # 13


Homework Equations


lim f(x+h) - f(x)/h
h->0
You need more parentheses, as in (f(x + h) - f(x))/h
jimmyly said:

The Attempt at a Solution


So I'm not sure if I am doing this correctly
at first I took the derivative of f(x) = |x| + x

f(x) = |x| + x = √x^2 + x
from there

f'= lim h -> 0 √(x+h)^2 + (x+h) - (√x^2 + x)/h
= x + h +x + h - x - x / h
= 2h/h
=2
√(x + h)2 ≠ x + h. Think about the case when x + h < 0.
jimmyly said:
I assumed this meant that f' = 2 but this doesn't make sense because there is no slope at x = 0

so I decided to take the right and left derivatives

right:
for x > 0, h>0
|x| = x
f'= |x+h| + (x + h) - (|x| + x)/h = (x+h) + (x + h) - ( x + x ) / h = 2

left:
for x < 0 , h < 0
|x| = -x

f' = -(x+h) + (x + h) - (-x +x )/h = -1

so my conclusion is that there is no derivative at x = 0 because the left and right derivatives do not equal.
Your conclusion is correct, but there's an error in your work. If you sketch a graph of y = |x| + x for x < 0, it should be clear that the slope is 0, not -1
jimmyly said:
I am not very confident in what I did here. If someone can help me understand it better I would really appreciate it!
 
shouldn't f'(0) = 0 or undefined or dne since there is no derivative at 0?
 
jimmyly said:
shouldn't f'(0) = 0 or undefined or dne since there is no derivative at 0?
Since the derivative doesn't exist for x = 0, the f' is not defined at 0.
 
For x > 0 |x| = x; so the slope for x>0 is 1.
For x < 0 |x| = -x; and the slope for x<0 is -1.

These are constants, so the limit from the left (x<0) at x=0 is -1. From the right (x>0) it is +1.
So the left and right derivatives are not the same ... this is due to the kink at x=0.So for the expression g(x) = -|x| + x you get g(x) = 0 for x>= 0, and g(x) = 2x for x < 0;
so now the slope is +2 for x<0, but it is 0 for x>0.
 
UltrafastPED said:
For x > 0 |x| = x; so the slope for x>0 is 1.
For x < 0 |x| = -x; and the slope for x<0 is -1.

These are constants, so the limit from the left (x<0) at x=0 is -1. From the right (x>0) it is +1.
So the left and right derivatives are not the same ... this is due to the kink at x=0.


So for the expression g(x) = -|x| + x you get g(x) = 0 for x>= 0, and g(x) = 2x for x < 0;
so now the slope is +2 for x<0, but it is 0 for x>0.
The OP went back and fixed his first post. It should have been f(x) = |x| + x.

For x > 0, f'(x) = 2; for x < 0, f'(x) = 0.
 
  • #10
Thanks for the replies! I fixed up the errors in my thread and added parentheses.

so I re-did the left for x<0
I got
f' = (-(x+h) + (x+h) - (-x+x))/h = (-x - h + x + h + x - x)/h = 2x/h but taking the limit as h->0 it is undefined

is it an algebraic error I am making?
 
  • #11
Mark44 said:
The OP went back and fixed his first post. It should have been f(x) = |x| + x.

For x > 0, f'(x) = 2; for x < 0, f'(x) = 0.

Yeah sorry for the confusion
 
  • #12
jimmyly said:
Thanks for the replies! I fixed up the errors in my thread and added parentheses.

so I re-did the left for x<0
I got
f' = (-(x+h) + (x+h) - (-x+x))/h = (-x - h + x + h + x - x)/h = 2x/h but taking the limit as h->0 it is undefined
The numerator isn't 2x. Check your algebra.
jimmyly said:
is it an algebraic error I am making?
Yes
 
  • #13
jimmyly said:
Thanks for the replies! I fixed up the errors in my thread and added parentheses.

so I re-did the left for x<0
I got
f' = (-(x+h) + (x+h) - (-x+x))/h = (-x - h + x + h + x - x)/h = 2x/h but taking the limit as h->0 it is undefined

is it an algebraic error I am making?

sorry

f' = (-(x+h) + (x+h) - (-x+x))/h = (-x - h + x + h + x - x)/h = 0/h not 2x/h
 
  • #14
Right. And in the limit, even though h → 0-, for each value of h that isn't zero, the quotient is zero, hence the limit is zero as well.

So as you found, if x > 0, f'(x) = 2, and if x < 0, f'(x) = 0. At x = 0, f' doesn't exist.
 
  • #15
I completely understand now! thank you so much for your help and clarity, I appreciate it!
 
  • #16
jimmyly said:
So how do I show that mathematically?
I understand that geometrically, but when I do problems like these I have a tough time doing it

You have already done it: you showed that the left- and right-derivatives are unequal, so there cannot be a limit of [f(h) - f(0)]/h as h → 0.

Note that h → 0 means that h is allowed to have either sign, as long as its magnitude goes to 0. If we want to specify a direction of approach to 0 we must write either h → 0+ or h → 0-.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K