What Went Wrong in This Differentiation Puzzle?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pbandjay
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differentiation Error
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a differentiation puzzle that presents a seemingly paradoxical conclusion when differentiating a function defined in terms of repeated addition. Participants explore the implications of differentiating expressions involving non-integer values and the proper treatment of limits in differentiation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a riddle involving the differentiation of the expression x = 1 + 1 + ... + 1 (x times), leading to the conclusion 2 = 1.
  • Another participant suggests that the error occurs during differentiation, arguing that the correct derivative should account for the sum of x terms, resulting in 2x = x + x rather than 2x = x.
  • A different viewpoint highlights the issue of differentiating the summation when x is a limit, noting that x being a limit complicates the differentiation of the summand.
  • One participant questions the definition of adding 1 "x times" for non-integer values of x, asserting that the function is not well-defined for all real numbers, which affects its differentiability.
  • Another participant humorously engages in notation manipulation, suggesting an alternative expression for the derivative that leads back to 2x.
  • Several participants express enjoyment of the puzzle and its memorability, indicating a light-hearted engagement with the mathematical challenge.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct approach to the differentiation puzzle, with multiple competing views and interpretations of the problem remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in defining the summation for non-integer values and the implications this has for the differentiation process. The treatment of limits and the assumptions made about the nature of x are also points of contention.

pbandjay
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
This is just a pretty simple "riddle" that I have always liked a lot. I didn't come up with it, I actually got it off of a website a few years ago. I'm sure for some of you, it won't be new, but here goes..

x = x
x = 1 + 1 + ... + 1 (x times)
x(x) = x(1 + 1 + ... + 1)
x2 = x + x + ... + x
D(x2) = D(x + x + ... + x)
D(x2) = D(x) + D(x) + ... + D(x)
2x = 1 + 1 + ... + 1 (x times)
2x = x
2 = 1

Uh oh! What's going on with that real number line?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm going to take a stab at it.

I think the mistake came when you did the derivative. Since your differentiating with respect for x.

2x=(1+1+1 xtimes)+(x+x+x+x)
the ennd result after you take the derivative should be 2x=x+x not 2x=x
 
The problem arises when you take the derivative of

x+x+...+x

and get

1+1+...+1

You see, the 1+1+...+1 can be represented as a summation over j with limits 1 and x. But since you differentiate with respect to x, and x is one of the limits, you can't just differentiate the summand.
 
That is a cute one. :-p

But... (1 + 1 + ... + 1) "x times"?
The right hand side is only defined for non-negative integer values of x.
How can you write the symbol 1 "x times" when x is 1.5, or square root of 2, or pi? How can you add 1 to itself "x times" when x is pi? If you cannot define this for all real numbers, then the function is not from R to R and is therefore not differentiable (in the sense of real functions.)
We see the problem more clearly if we differentiate earlier in the process:
x = 1 + 1 + ... + 1
D(x)=D(1 + 1 + ... + 1)
1 = D(1) + D(1) + ... + D(1)
1 = 0

You must be able to effectively compute the action 1 + 1 + ... + 1 "x times".
You could try to defined it for non integer values.
But if you define it as meaning x, that is
1 + 1 + ... + 1 "x times" = x,
then that is the effective form that we would differentiate. To take the derivative of this new version we would first need to write it in its effective form. So, in this case we get D(1 + 1 + ... + 1 "x times") = D(x) = 1 by definition.
 
For fun abuse of notation,

D(x + x + ... + x (x times)) = (1 + 1 + ... + 1) (x times) + (x + x + ... + x) D(x times)
 
Hurkyl said:
For fun abuse of notation,

D(x + x + ... + x (x times)) = (1 + 1 + ... + 1) (x times) + (x + x + ... + x) D(x times)

:approve: Which, of course, we have D(x times) = (1 times), so...

D(x + x + ... + x (x times)) = (1 + 1 + ... + 1) (x times) + (x + x + ... + x) D(x times)=

(1 + 1 + ... + 1) (x times) + (x + x + ... + x)(1 times)= x + (x) = 2x
 
Haha I should have known you all would have chopped this up so quickly! The reason I like this one so much is because it is very easy to remember, too.
 
so I'm just wondering. was what i posted right? lol :p

I haven't done this stuff in like 2 years nearly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K