Finding the slope using the method of First Principles

  • Thread starter Thread starter ttpp1124
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method Slope
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on evaluating the correctness of a method used to find the slope using first principles. Participants point out that the original work contains several mathematical errors, particularly in the placement of parentheses and the application of the product rule, which is not appropriate for this context. There is also confusion regarding the limit evaluation necessary for the derivative, with specific lines of the work being deemed incorrect or unrelated to the problem. Overall, the consensus is that while the final answer may be close, the supporting work lacks clarity and correctness. Proper application of the limit definition of the derivative is emphasized as essential for a valid solution.
ttpp1124
Messages
110
Reaction score
4
Homework Statement
I solved it, can anyone see if my method is correct?
Relevant Equations
n/a
IMG_3906.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ttpp1124 said:
Homework Statement:: I solved it, can anyone see if my method is correct?
Relevant Equations:: n/a

View attachment 261558
It looks correct, but is it "first principle"? Multiply both the numerator and denominator by the sum of the square roots, and take the limit.
 
@ttpp1124, you ended up with sort of the right answer, but the work shown doesn't support your answer. At the end of your work you have ##2x - 1^{(-1/2)}##. This is technically incorrect. Although you have used parentheses, you put them in the wrong place. Instead, they should be around the expression that's being raised to the power; i.e., like this ##(2x -1)^{-1/2}##. What you wrote would simplify to 2x - 1.

Regarding @ehild's comment about first principles, it doesn't look like you actually evaluated the limit at the bottom of the left half of your work. The part below "Expanding" doesn't make any sense at all -- it looks like you used some sort of product rule. For one thing, that rule doesn't apply here, and for another, you're supposed to find the derivative by first principles; i.e., by using the limit definition of the derivative.

The work at the top of the right half of the page is completely wrong:
##(2x - 1)^{1/2} + (1/2)(2h)(2x - 1)^{(-1/2)}##, and is entirely unrelated to the problem you're doing. If your instruction is even halfway careful, you won't get credit for this work.
 
Mark44 said:
@ttpp1124, you ended up with sort of the right answer, but the work shown doesn't support your answer. At the end of your work you have ##2x - 1^{(-1/2)}##. This is technically incorrect. Although you have used parentheses, you put them in the wrong place. Instead, they should be around the expression that's being raised to the power; i.e., like this ##(2x -1)^{-1/2}##. What you wrote would simplify to 2x - 1.

Regarding @ehild's comment about first principles, it doesn't look like you actually evaluated the limit at the bottom of the left half of your work. The part below "Expanding" doesn't make any sense at all -- it looks like you used some sort of product rule. For one thing, that rule doesn't apply here, and for another, you're supposed to find the derivative by first principles; i.e., by using the limit definition of the derivative.

The work at the top of the right half of the page is completely wrong:
##(2x - 1)^{1/2} + (1/2)(2h)(2x - 1)^{(-1/2)}##, and is entirely unrelated to the problem you're doing. If your instruction is even halfway careful, you won't get credit for this work.
The end is cut off a bit, my apologies; I think this is better. What do you think?
IMG_3913 2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ttpp1124 said:
I think this is better. What do you think?
No, it's not better.
You have a small mistake in line 4 on the left side. In the numerator, you have ##[(2(x + h - 1)^{1/2} - (2x - 1)^{1/2}]##. 2(x + h - 1) is wrong. Also, there are 3 left parens and 2 right parens in the numerator, so that's a mistake. It looks like you caught your error in the 5th line.

The bigger problem is that you apparently know how this should come out, but aren't able to show the work that supports it. In the next to last line, the big ugly fraction is correct, but not the line that follows it.
The reason you're doing what @ehild suggested is to get rid of the fractional powers in the numerator, using the basic idea that ##(x^{1/2} + y^{1/2})(x^{1/2} - y^{1/2}) = x - y##. This is really the formula ##(a + b)(a - b) = a^2 - b^2## in disguise.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K