Validity of Piecewise Differentiation for Functions with Discontinuities

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ted123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graphs
Ted123
Messages
428
Reaction score
0
[PLAIN]http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/9868/heaviside.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure the function is defined as you say? Yes, as given, f is NOT continuous because it is not defined at x= -1 and at x= 1.

If the function were defined as
f(x)= \left{\begin{array}{cc} -1, & x<-1 \\ x, & -1\le x\le 1 \\ 1, & x> 1\end{array}
then it would be continuous and the first and second derivatives exactly as you say.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Are you sure the function is defined as you say? Yes, as given, f is NOT continuous because it is not defined at x= -1 and at x= 1.

If the function were defined as
f(x)= \left{\begin{array}{cc} -1, & x<-1 \\ x, & -1\le x\le 1 \\ 1, & x> 1\end{array}
then it would be continuous and the first and second derivatives exactly as you say.

The question and the solution is exactly how they appear. So even if the statement in the solutions 'f being continuous...' is false, is the method of piecewise differentiation to obtain f' still valid?
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top