Product Rule Proof: Solve Using Limits

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the product rule for derivatives using limits. The initial expression presented is (f(x)g(x))' = f'(x)g(x) + f(x)g'(x), followed by the limit definition of the derivative. Participants emphasize the importance of correctly interpreting notation, clarifying that (fg)(x) represents the function rather than a product of numbers. A suggested technique involves manipulating the limit expression by adding and subtracting a term to facilitate the proof, highlighting the need for rigor in mathematical reasoning.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with the definition of derivatives
  • Knowledge of function notation and operations
  • Basic algebraic manipulation techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the formal definition of the derivative using limits
  • Explore the proof of the product rule in calculus
  • Learn about the role of function notation in calculus
  • Practice algebraic manipulation techniques for limits
USEFUL FOR

Students learning calculus, mathematics educators, and anyone interested in understanding the rigorous proof of the product rule for derivatives.

NWeid1
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
I know there are other ways to obtain the product rule proff but my teacher got me started and I want to finish it this way and also have you guys explain WHY to do each step.

So far I have:

(f(x)g(x))' = f'(x)g(x) + f(x)g'(x)

lim (F(x+h) - F(x))/h as h->0

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

and now I'm stuck, lol, thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So all you've done is to apply the definition of "derivative" to (fg)'(x)? That's the obvious first step. I'm confused by the fact that you're saying that you want to do it your way, when you're not actually suggesting a way to proceed.

The standard trick is similar to this: \frac{A-B}{h}=\frac{A+0-B}{h}=\frac{A+(-C+C)-B}{h}=\frac{(A-C)+(C-B)}{h} You just need to choose an appropriate thing to add and subtract from the numerator, something like the C in my example. Note that the above is true no matter what C is, so you can choose it to be anything you want it to be.

I don't like the notation (f(x)g(x))' because (something)' is supposed to mean "the derivative of the function between the parentheses", but f(x)g(x) isn't a function. It's a number. You want the derivative of "the function that takes x to f(x)g(x) for all x". This function is denoted by fg, not f(x)g(x). Just to clarify that last point: fg is the function defined by (fg)(x)=f(x)g(x) for all x.
 
Last edited:
Fredrik said:
So all you've done is to apply the definition of "derivative" to (fg)'(x)? That's the obvious first step. I'm confused by the fact that you're saying that you want to do it your way, when you're not actually suggesting a way to proceed.

The standard trick is similar to this: \frac{A-B}{h}=\frac{A+0-B}{h}=\frac{A+(-C+C)-B}{h}=\frac{(A-C)+(C-B)}{h} You just need to choose an appropriate thing to add and subtract from the numerator, something like the C in my example. Note that the above is true no matter what C is, so you can choose it to be anything you want it to be.

I don't like the notation (f(x)g(x))' because (something)' is supposed to mean "the derivative of the function between the parentheses", but f(x)g(x) isn't a function. It's a number. You want the derivative of "the function that takes x to f(x)g(x) for all x". This function is denoted by fg, not f(x)g(x). Just to clarify that last point: fg is the function defined by (fg)(x)=f(x)g(x) for all x.
Thank you! I always knew that you have to add and subtract the same quantity but the way you wrote it was very crisp, clear, and added a bit of "rigor" for lack of better words to the technique! It would definitely help in future proofs.

OP, don't be disappointed if you are a bit confused. This type of proof can be a bit tricky because the techniques seems unmotivated and random. Reply back and we will help you out!
 
I write
f(x+h)=f(x)+[f(x+h)-f(x)]
g(x+h)=g(x)+[g(x+h)-g(x)]
 
lurflurf said:
I write
f(x+h)=f(x)+[f(x+h)-f(x)]
g(x+h)=g(x)+[g(x+h)-g(x)]

How do you get to that conclusion? Can you pronounce your lines of thought behind the reasoning above?

Edit: Hmm clever. I see it now. Would that make it easier to prove the problem?
 
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 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K