The derivative of function under constraint

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
33 replies · 3K views
I can also prove the inconsistency by taking,
f(x) = (f(5))x, it is given in question that f(5) = 2.
Now I am going to show that if f(5) = 2 then f'(0) ≠ 3
Differentiating,
## f'(x) = f(5)^x ln f(5) ##
Putting x = 0 and we know from question f(5) = 2
We see f'(0) = ln2 ≠ 3
So the values are dependent.
Is this also a way of correctly thinking?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Raghav Gupta said:
Why f(x) is only equal to f((1))x?
As Sammy is saying it could be any constant.
So we can also write f(x) =(f(2))x ?

It's looking like I'm going round and round if you see my encounter with Dick in this thread.
So if we take
## h\to 0 ##
Then [tex]f'(x)= f(x) \frac{f(h) - f(0)}{h}[/tex]
Now what to do?

No: this equation is false. For finite ##h > 0## the right-hand-side is NOT equal to ##f'(x)##. Derivatives involve a limit, not just a difference-ratio.
 
Ray Vickson said:
No: this equation is false. For finite ##h > 0## the right-hand-side is NOT equal to ##f'(x)##. Derivatives involve a limit, not just a difference-ratio.
But if you see I have written ## h\to 0 ##
 
Raghav Gupta said:
But if you see I have written ## h\to 0 ##

No, you have not written it properly and in the correct place. You should have written
[tex]f'(x) = f(x) \, \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{f(h) -f(0)}{h}[/tex]
THAT would be a correct statement.

Do you see how it is different from what you wrote? (This not mere quibbling; if you are not careful to write things correctly, they can come back later to cause you to make difficult-to-trace errors. I am trying to help you develop good habits that will be useful to you later, when problems are a lot more complicated.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Raghav Gupta