Product Rule Proof: Reasons Why it Won't Work

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the product rule in calculus, specifically addressing why a proposed approach to the proof may not be valid. Participants explore the mathematical expressions involved, the computation of differences, and the proper application of limit laws.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of an expression involving limits, suggesting that the limit of the product does not equal the product of the limits.
  • Another participant asserts that the computation of the difference Δ(g(x)h(x)) is being done incorrectly and points out the introduction of an arbitrary extra Δx in the denominator.
  • A participant acknowledges the mistake of including an extra Δx but seeks clarification on the incorrect computation of Δ(g(x)h(x)).
  • There is a discussion about the assumption that Δ(g(x)h(x)) equals (Δg(x))(Δh(x)) to leading order in Δx.
  • A standard proof of the product rule is presented, detailing the steps involved in deriving the product rule from the definition of the derivative.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the proposed approach to the product rule proof. There is no consensus on the correctness of the initial expressions or the assumptions made about the limits and differences.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight issues with the clarity of mathematical expressions presented in images, suggesting that they are difficult to read and quote properly on mobile devices.

UMath1
Messages
361
Reaction score
9
Why wouldn't this work?
Screenshot_2015-09-22-16-03-31.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because
$$
\lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\left(\frac{\Delta(g(x)h(x))}{\Delta x}\right) \neq \lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\left(\frac{\Delta g(x)}{\Delta x}\right)\lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\left(\frac{\Delta h(x)}{\Delta x}\right).
$$
It is unclear why you think these expressions would be equal on quite a few levels.
 
Isn't that a limit law though?
Screenshot_2015-09-22-16-11-32.png
 
You are doing something completely different from that law. Not only are you not computing ##\Delta(g(x) h(x))## correctly, you are also introducing an arbitrary extra ##\Delta x## in the denominator.

Also, you should stop attaching images like these. They are going to be impossible to read on most mobile devices and impossible to quote properly. There is a tutorial on how to write proper forum maths here: https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/
 
I understand that I put in an extra Δx. But how is Δ(g(x)h(x)) beung computed incorrectly?
 
UMath1 said:
I understand that I put in an extra Δx. But how is Δ(g(x)h(x)) beung computed incorrectly?

You are assuming ##\Delta(g(x)h(x)) = (\Delta g(x))(\Delta h(x))## to leading order in ##\Delta x##:
 
Oh ok..thanks!
 
Orodruin said:
Also, you should stop attaching images like these. They are going to be impossible to read on most mobile devices and impossible to quote properly. There is a tutorial on how to write proper forum maths here: https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/
I agree completely. The image you posted in #3 can be done right here in the text input pane.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Anama Skout
The standard proof: Let f(x)=u(x)\cdot v(x). Then f(x+h)=u(x+h)\cdot v(x+h). This means that f(x+h)-f(x)=u(x+h)\cdot v(x+h) - u(x)\cdot v(x). Now add and subtract u(x+h)v(x): f(x+h)-f(x)=u(x+h)\cdot v(x+h) - u(x+h)\cdot v(x) + u(x+h)\cdot v(x) - u(x)\cdot v(x)= u(x+h)\cdot[v(x+h)- v(x)]+v(x)\cdot [u(x+h)-u(x)].
Now divide by h and go to the limit: f'(x)= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{u(x+h)\cdot[v(x+h)- v(x)]}{h}+\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{v(x)\cdot [u(x+h)-u(x)]}{h}=u(x)\cdot v'(x)+u'(x)v(x).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
18K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K