Need help identifying which algebra rule was used

  • Thread starter Thread starter LogarithmLuke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the algebraic manipulation involved in simplifying the expression for the derivative of a function. A key point is the distinction between simplifying expressions and working with equations, which allows for more flexibility in manipulation. The confusion arises from the transition from -h to -1, clarified by noting that dividing both sides of an equation by h cancels the h in the numerator. Participants emphasize that recognizing the context of equations versus expressions is crucial for proper algebraic techniques. Overall, the thread highlights the importance of understanding algebraic rules in calculus derivations.
LogarithmLuke
Messages
82
Reaction score
3
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/derivative-of-1-x.211489/

In the last post, three last steps. He changes -h into -1, how does this work? I know that if you for example have h/h it's equal to 1 regardless of what value h has, since they're both the same value. I don't see that being applied here though. Could anyone help me out?

By the way, i tried messaging the person who posted it, but he is no longer active on this forum. The thread is also not open for further replies.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If
f(x+h)-f(x)=\frac{-h}{x(x+h)}
then
\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}=\frac{-1}{x(x+h)}

Is this what you're asking about?

To simplify it, it's basically equivalent to

If
A = \frac{-h}{B}
then
\frac{A}{h}=\frac{-1}{B}
because
\frac{A}{h}=\frac{\left(\frac{-h}{B}\right)}{h}=\frac{-h}{Bh}=\frac{-1}{B}

But more simply, you can just notice that A has a factor of h in the numerator, so to divide A by h, you're then cancelling that factor.
 
LogarithmLuke said:
In the last post, three last steps. He changes -h into -1, how does this work?
That's not what happened. What he did do was divide both sides by h.
 
What are you puzzled by? \frac{-h}{h}=-1
 
I know, i just didn't think about the equation that was there, because that's not how i learned to do it in school. It didn't cross my mind that he used the fact that there was an equation there to move further with the math problem. When I've done these we never used equations, just simple factoring.
 
LogarithmLuke said:
I know, i just didn't think about the equation that was there, because that's not how i learned to do it in school. It didn't cross my mind that he used the fact that there was an equation there to move further with the math problem. When I've done these we never used equations, just simple factoring.
There's a big difference between simplifying an expression (such as by factoring and combining terms and so on) and working with an equation. When you're working with an expression, there are only a few things you can do, but when you're working with an equation, there are lots of things you can do: add the same expression to both sides, multiply both sides by the same value, divide both sides by the same nonzero value, take logs of both sides, and many others.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top