Where is the mistake in my 'derivation' of $(uv)' = u'v$?Indefinite integral. Where is the mistake?What's wrong with my differentiation (help finding a derivative)?What is the mistake?Where is the mistake in this problem?Where is the mistake in the following?Where is the mistake of this derivation?How to know which terms to add or multiply to complete a proof?In the conventional less-than-rigorous calculus course, is Velleman's new notation useful only once?Where is the mistake in my approach?Interpretation of Differentials
How can I write an interdental lateral in phonetic transcription?
Did the meaning of "significant" change in the 20th century?
Is there a list of words that will enable the second player in two-player Ghost to always win?
The Sword in the Stone
How to get CPU-G to run on 18.04
How do I explain an exponentially complex intuitively?
How to tar a list of directories only if they exist
Melee or Ranged attacks by Monsters, no distinction in modifiers?
To find islands of 1 and 0 in matrix
How did the SysRq key get onto modern keyboards if it's rarely used?
What is the most efficient way to write 'for' loops in Matlab?
Do the books ever say oliphaunts aren’t elephants?
Why is the number of local variables used in a Java bytecode method not the most economical?
Why does Canada require mandatory bilingualism in all government posts?
Polyhedra, Polyhedron, Polytopes and Polygon
Why do planes need a roll motion?
Correlation length anisotropy in the 2D Ising model
3D Statue Park: Daggers and dashes
Why is it considered Acid Rain with pH <5.6
Is it legal for private citizens to "impound" e-scooters?
Commercial jet accompanied by small plane near Seattle
If Trump gets impeached, how long would Pence be president?
(2 of 11: Moon-or-Sun) What is Pyramid Cult's Favorite Camera?
Trapped in an ocean Temple in Minecraft?
Where is the mistake in my 'derivation' of $(uv)' = u'v$?
Indefinite integral. Where is the mistake?What's wrong with my differentiation (help finding a derivative)?What is the mistake?Where is the mistake in this problem?Where is the mistake in the following?Where is the mistake of this derivation?How to know which terms to add or multiply to complete a proof?In the conventional less-than-rigorous calculus course, is Velleman's new notation useful only once?Where is the mistake in my approach?Interpretation of Differentials
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
So I tried to derive the product rule without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$ as we used to. Instead I started deriving it directly and ran into a strange conclusion that $(uv)'=u'v$. The derivation looks like this:
beginalign
(uv)' & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)-u(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x+Delta x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x) \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xv(x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xv(x) \
& = v(x)(lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta x) \
& = v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)-u(x)Delta x \
& = u'v
endalign
Apparently there is a mistake somewhere, but I can't figure out where exactly. Any ideas?
calculus limits proof-verification derivatives fake-proofs
edited Jul 18 at 8:22
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 22:09
TeiReiDaTeiReiDa
434 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
So I tried to derive the product rule without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$ as we used to. Instead I started deriving it directly and ran into a strange conclusion that $(uv)'=u'v$. The derivation looks like this:
beginalign
(uv)' & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)-u(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x+Delta x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x) \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xv(x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xv(x) \
& = v(x)(lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta x) \
& = v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)-u(x)Delta x \
& = u'v
endalign
Apparently there is a mistake somewhere, but I can't figure out where exactly. Any ideas?
calculus limits proof-verification derivatives fake-proofs
edited Jul 18 at 8:22
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 22:09
TeiReiDaTeiReiDa
434 bronze badges
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
Most of the limits you have written during your working do not exist due to division by zero. Hence this kind of invalidates the working.
$endgroup$
– Peter Foreman
Jul 17 at 22:12
5
$begingroup$
$lim_Delta x rightarrow 0 fracv(x)u(x)Delta x$ is certainly not defined in general
$endgroup$
– Dayton
Jul 17 at 22:13
4
$begingroup$
We can't say that $lim_x to a f(x) - g(x) = lim_x to a f(x) - lim_x to a g(x)$ if either $f$ or $g$ do not have a limit as $x$ approaches $a$.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jul 17 at 22:18
5
$begingroup$
In a 'where is my mistake?'-question like this, why do so many answers ignore that question and just give alternative proofs? Am I the only one bothered by this?
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 6:53
3
$begingroup$
@TeiReiDa, no need to apologize, I think it is a good and clear question, and I don't know why other people interpret it as "please ignore all the work I did and just give me an alternative way to proof this".
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:15
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
So I tried to derive the product rule without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$ as we used to. Instead I started deriving it directly and ran into a strange conclusion that $(uv)'=u'v$. The derivation looks like this:
beginalign
(uv)' & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)-u(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x+Delta x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x) \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xv(x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xv(x) \
& = v(x)(lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta x) \
& = v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)-u(x)Delta x \
& = u'v
endalign
Apparently there is a mistake somewhere, but I can't figure out where exactly. Any ideas?
calculus limits proof-verification derivatives fake-proofs
edited Jul 18 at 8:22
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 22:09
TeiReiDaTeiReiDa
434 bronze badges
$endgroup$
So I tried to derive the product rule without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$ as we used to. Instead I started deriving it directly and ran into a strange conclusion that $(uv)'=u'v$. The derivation looks like this:
beginalign
(uv)' & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)-u(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x+Delta x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x) \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xv(x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xv(x) \
& = v(x)(lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta x) \
& = v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)-u(x)Delta x \
& = u'v
endalign
Apparently there is a mistake somewhere, but I can't figure out where exactly. Any ideas?
calculus limits proof-verification derivatives fake-proofs
calculus limits proof-verification derivatives fake-proofs
edited Jul 18 at 8:22
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 22:09
TeiReiDaTeiReiDa
434 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 8:22
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 22:09
TeiReiDaTeiReiDa
434 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 8:22
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 8:22
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 8:22
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 22:09
TeiReiDaTeiReiDa
434 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 22:09
TeiReiDaTeiReiDa
434 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 22:09
TeiReiDaTeiReiDa
434 bronze badges
434 bronze badges
12
$begingroup$
Most of the limits you have written during your working do not exist due to division by zero. Hence this kind of invalidates the working.
$endgroup$
– Peter Foreman
Jul 17 at 22:12
5
$begingroup$
$lim_Delta x rightarrow 0 fracv(x)u(x)Delta x$ is certainly not defined in general
$endgroup$
– Dayton
Jul 17 at 22:13
4
$begingroup$
We can't say that $lim_x to a f(x) - g(x) = lim_x to a f(x) - lim_x to a g(x)$ if either $f$ or $g$ do not have a limit as $x$ approaches $a$.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jul 17 at 22:18
5
$begingroup$
In a 'where is my mistake?'-question like this, why do so many answers ignore that question and just give alternative proofs? Am I the only one bothered by this?
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 6:53
3
$begingroup$
@TeiReiDa, no need to apologize, I think it is a good and clear question, and I don't know why other people interpret it as "please ignore all the work I did and just give me an alternative way to proof this".
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:15
|
show 9 more comments
12
$begingroup$
Most of the limits you have written during your working do not exist due to division by zero. Hence this kind of invalidates the working.
$endgroup$
– Peter Foreman
Jul 17 at 22:12
5
$begingroup$
$lim_Delta x rightarrow 0 fracv(x)u(x)Delta x$ is certainly not defined in general
$endgroup$
– Dayton
Jul 17 at 22:13
4
$begingroup$
We can't say that $lim_x to a f(x) - g(x) = lim_x to a f(x) - lim_x to a g(x)$ if either $f$ or $g$ do not have a limit as $x$ approaches $a$.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jul 17 at 22:18
5
$begingroup$
In a 'where is my mistake?'-question like this, why do so many answers ignore that question and just give alternative proofs? Am I the only one bothered by this?
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 6:53
3
$begingroup$
@TeiReiDa, no need to apologize, I think it is a good and clear question, and I don't know why other people interpret it as "please ignore all the work I did and just give me an alternative way to proof this".
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:15
12
12
$begingroup$
Most of the limits you have written during your working do not exist due to division by zero. Hence this kind of invalidates the working.
$endgroup$
– Peter Foreman
Jul 17 at 22:12
$begingroup$
Most of the limits you have written during your working do not exist due to division by zero. Hence this kind of invalidates the working.
$endgroup$
– Peter Foreman
Jul 17 at 22:12
5
5
$begingroup$
$lim_Delta x rightarrow 0 fracv(x)u(x)Delta x$ is certainly not defined in general
$endgroup$
– Dayton
Jul 17 at 22:13
$begingroup$
$lim_Delta x rightarrow 0 fracv(x)u(x)Delta x$ is certainly not defined in general
$endgroup$
– Dayton
Jul 17 at 22:13
4
4
$begingroup$
We can't say that $lim_x to a f(x) - g(x) = lim_x to a f(x) - lim_x to a g(x)$ if either $f$ or $g$ do not have a limit as $x$ approaches $a$.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jul 17 at 22:18
$begingroup$
We can't say that $lim_x to a f(x) - g(x) = lim_x to a f(x) - lim_x to a g(x)$ if either $f$ or $g$ do not have a limit as $x$ approaches $a$.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jul 17 at 22:18
5
5
$begingroup$
In a 'where is my mistake?'-question like this, why do so many answers ignore that question and just give alternative proofs? Am I the only one bothered by this?
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 6:53
$begingroup$
In a 'where is my mistake?'-question like this, why do so many answers ignore that question and just give alternative proofs? Am I the only one bothered by this?
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 6:53
3
3
$begingroup$
@TeiReiDa, no need to apologize, I think it is a good and clear question, and I don't know why other people interpret it as "please ignore all the work I did and just give me an alternative way to proof this".
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:15
$begingroup$
@TeiReiDa, no need to apologize, I think it is a good and clear question, and I don't know why other people interpret it as "please ignore all the work I did and just give me an alternative way to proof this".
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:15
|
show 9 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
With regard to where you went wrong in your original posting, it is in the second line. You have writen a limit of the form $infty -infty$ which is indeterminate. Remember, $x$ is fixed, so $u(x), v(x)$ are also fixed, therefore, the factor $fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x$ of the first term in line 4 and $fracu(x)Delta x$ of the second term of line 4 have infinite limits as $Delta x rightarrow 0$. But really, you already had this error present from line 2.
I want to mention another way to 'arrive' at the product rule using logarithms. It is important to recognize that this is not a proof, except when the functions $u,v$ are strictly positive. However, it is a convenient symbolic way to recall the product rule (a useful mnemonic). If $y=uv$ then
beginalign logy&=loguv&\
&=logu +logvendalign
Hence,
$fracy'y=fracu'u+fracv'v$
Now, multiply by $y$ and you get $y'=u'v+v'u$. Again, this is not a proof of the general product rule, but other posters have already given satisfactory explanations using the difference quotient definition.
I personally like this method because it also works to produce a formula for the derivative of a product of an arbitrary finite number of functions (provided that all of these functions are strictly positive!).
If $y=prod_j=1^n f_j$ then
beginalign logy&=logprod_j=1^n f_j&\
&= sum_j=1^n logf_jendalign
therefore,
beginalign fracy'y= sum_j=1^n fracf_j'f_j endalign
hence
beginalign y'&=sum_j=1^n fracyf_j'f_j\
&= sum_j=1^n left(f_j'(x)prod_stackrel1leq ileq nineq jf_j(x)right) endalign
edited Jul 18 at 16:54
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:42
user140776user140776
1,0625 silver badges14 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: The "easy way" given in this answer is simply wrong. It fails when $u$ is the constant zero function, among many other problems.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 7:15
$begingroup$
@user218120: The answer starts at "With regard to where you went wrong", everything before that is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 7:32
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: Yes the second half attempts to explain what went wrong in the asker's question, which is a good thing. But I don't consider a post that is half wrong to be a correct answer, as readers are typically incapable of identifying what is wrong. I'll wait for user140776 to remove the incorrect first half.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 8:20
$begingroup$
It is the only answer that gives an answer to the real question ("it is in the second line"), and it gives a correct answer to that. I agree that the answer would improve if the first part is removed, because it is irrelevant, and also wrong. But this answer is better than the other 'anwers' that don't answer the question.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:22
$begingroup$
That $log$ thing may be formally wrong but it is also an excellent mnemonic, especially when you apply the same principle to $y=frac u v$, which is hell to memorise otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Martin Kochanski
Jul 18 at 11:40
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I find your notation very cumbersome. Now, taking into account that differentiability implies continuity, we can write
$$fracf(x)g(x)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=fracf(x)g(x)-f(x)g(x_0)+f(x)g(x_0)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=$$
$$=f(x)fracg(x)-g(x_0)x-x_0+fracf(x)-f(x_0)x-x_0g(x)xrightarrow[xto x_0]f(x_0)g'(x_0)+f'(x_0)g(x_0)$$
Complete details. The above is the easiest proof I know of the product rule for derivative. The trick in the first step is also used in general limits.
answered Jul 17 at 22:31
DonAntonioDonAntonio
184k14 gold badges98 silver badges235 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, I know. But for some reason this addition-subtraction step wasn't the first that came to my mind when I decided to do this derivation as a warmup. For me in most cases it's unclear what exactly should I add and subtract to simplify the expression, so usually I prefer to evade such methods.
$endgroup$
– TeiReiDa
Jul 17 at 23:05
$begingroup$
That preference is okay, but sometimes it is unevadable. After all, you need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$. $$lim_hto 0tfrac[uv](x+h)-[uv](x)h=u(x)lim_hto 0 tfracv(x+h)-v(x)h+v(x)lim_hto 0tfracu(x+h)-u(x)h$$ [The trick is recognising $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$]
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jul 17 at 23:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This has been pointed out in comments already, but the error in the proof is introduced in this step:
$$ lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x.$$
Neither of these limits exists (in both cases the quantity goes to infinity),
so the difference is indeterminate. Once you start manipulating such a thing as if such limits were valid, it is likely to come out to any number of wrong answers. By inserting a couple more steps afterward, you could reduce the entire expression to zero.
Taking the idea that a $u'$ has to do with the change in $u$ over the change in $x$, write $Delta u = u(x+Delta x) - u(x).$
Likewise write $Delta v = v(x+Delta x) - v(x).$
That is, $u(x+Delta x) = u(x) + Delta u$ and $v(x+Delta x) = v(x) + Delta v.$
Now plug this into your first formula and plod along without knowing where we're going until we get there.
beginalign
(uv)'
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x + Delta x)v(x + Delta x) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x) + Delta u)(v(x) + Delta v) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x)v(x) + (Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
endalign
Now observe that
beginalign
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x) - u(x)Delta x = u'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracv(x+Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = v'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x
&= left(lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta xright)
left(lim_Delta xto0 Delta vright) = 0
endalign
since $lim_Delta xto0 Delta v = 0.$
Putting all of this together,
beginalign
(uv)'
&= v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
+ u(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
+ lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
&= v(x) u'(x) + u(x) v'(x) + 0 \
&= u' v + u v'.
endalign
No tricks with adding and subtracting a mysterious term or other great inspiration, just distribution of multiplication over addition and beating on the monster until it's dead.
Personally I like the more inspired solutions, but sometimes when you're stuck for inspiration you can just push your way through.
answered Jul 18 at 0:45
David KDavid K
58.4k4 gold badges46 silver badges130 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This would be a great answer to the question "How to derive the product rule?". Sadly, a different question was asked, that is not answered in this post.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:26
2
$begingroup$
@Pakk At the time I posted, I was aware that the question "where is the mistake" had already been answered, so I chose not to repeat that part of the answer. I merely answered the next obvious question, "How could I have derived the product rule directly without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$?" But since the accepted answer turns out only partially correct, I've added to this one.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 18 at 11:18
$begingroup$
And now, this answer is the best answer. I'm happy. Have a great day!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 11:43
$begingroup$
Typographical error: $$lim_Delta x to 0 fracDelta vDelta x = lim_Delta x to 0 fracv(x + Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = colorredv'(x)$$
$endgroup$
– N. F. Taussig
Jul 19 at 9:01
$begingroup$
@N.F.Taussig Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 19 at 11:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As others have pointed out, and to make @Pakk happy, the error is in the second line. Now I'm going to go on and answer the question you didn't ask, but probably should have:
How could I, too, learn to detect where the error is?
Well, you know that $(uv)' = u'v + u v'$, right? But you've "proved" that $(uv)' = u'v$. So if you can find functions with $uv' ne 0$, the two right-hand-sides will be different. There are a lot of functions $u$ and $v$ with $uv' ne 0$ of course, but picking a really simple pair will make things especially easy to de-bug. So let's pick $u$ to be a constant: $u(x) = 1$, and $v$ to be something whose derivative is constant: $v(x) = x$. Now let's look at your "proof" for those two functions. I'm just going to substitute in these particular values for $u$ and $v$ (or their derivatives) wherever they occur in your sequence of limits:
beginalign
(uv)' & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)-u(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x+Delta x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x) \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xv(x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xv(x) \
& = v(x)(lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta x) \
& = v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)-u(x)Delta x \
& = u'v
endalign
becomes (when we evaluate at $x = 1$, which is as good a place as any):
beginalign
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(1+Delta x)v(1+Delta x)-u(1)v(1)Delta x \
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot (1+Delta x)-1 cdot 1Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot(1+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot 1Delta x \
ldots
endalign
and now suddenly the "bug" jumps out at you: the thing on the second line, which is $1$, is not at all what you've got on the third line, which is a difference of two limits that don't exist.
By the way, a different bug, namely that the left-hand side of what you wrote is a function, while the right-hand side, if the limit exists, is a real number, also becomes pretty obvious when you try to check things this way. The LHS of your sequence of equalities should have been $(uv)'(x)$, not $(uv)'$. I swept that error under the rug with my "when we evaluate at $x = 1$..." remark so that I could get to demonstrating the more useful skill.
Short summary: If you've proved something general that you suspect is wrong, find a specific example where it appears to produce the wrong answer, and trace that example through your supposed "proof" to find the error (if there is one).
answered Jul 18 at 12:05
John HughesJohn Hughes
68.1k2 gold badges44 silver badges99 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
very nice and immensely useful last paragraph! +1
$endgroup$
– peek-a-boo
Jul 18 at 12:10
1
$begingroup$
I am even happier than I was before, this day is the highlight of my life!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 19:37
$begingroup$
While I was being silly in my answer, I actually share your frustration about people answering the wrong question.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Jul 18 at 19:57
1
$begingroup$
In highschool I had a bad teacher, who never explained what was wrong about a failed attempt, but just showef his preferred method. I saw classmates passing the tests because they did what he told, while never understanding why they should do it in that way, and they understandably started to hate mathematics. They were trained to not think about it, and just memorize what the teacher said. That is the source of my frustration when the attempt is ignored, and another method is given.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 20 at 17:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Remember you may only use the additive and multiplicative rules for limits when you can justify that those limits do have finite convergence. So we just need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$ (or vice versa). This is fairly straight forward, as long as you recognise that: $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$.
$$beginalign[uv'+u'v](x)&=u(x)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&= left(lim_hto 0u(x+h)right)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)left(v(x+h)-v(x)right)+left(u(x+h)-u(x)right)v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto xdfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x+h),v(x)+u(x+h),v(x)-u(x),v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x),v(x)h\[3ex][uv'+u'v](x)&= [uv]'(x)endalign$$
answered Jul 17 at 23:41
Graham KempGraham Kemp
91.4k4 gold badges36 silver badges82 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3296189%2fwhere-is-the-mistake-in-my-derivation-of-uv-uv%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
With regard to where you went wrong in your original posting, it is in the second line. You have writen a limit of the form $infty -infty$ which is indeterminate. Remember, $x$ is fixed, so $u(x), v(x)$ are also fixed, therefore, the factor $fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x$ of the first term in line 4 and $fracu(x)Delta x$ of the second term of line 4 have infinite limits as $Delta x rightarrow 0$. But really, you already had this error present from line 2.
I want to mention another way to 'arrive' at the product rule using logarithms. It is important to recognize that this is not a proof, except when the functions $u,v$ are strictly positive. However, it is a convenient symbolic way to recall the product rule (a useful mnemonic). If $y=uv$ then
beginalign logy&=loguv&\
&=logu +logvendalign
Hence,
$fracy'y=fracu'u+fracv'v$
Now, multiply by $y$ and you get $y'=u'v+v'u$. Again, this is not a proof of the general product rule, but other posters have already given satisfactory explanations using the difference quotient definition.
I personally like this method because it also works to produce a formula for the derivative of a product of an arbitrary finite number of functions (provided that all of these functions are strictly positive!).
If $y=prod_j=1^n f_j$ then
beginalign logy&=logprod_j=1^n f_j&\
&= sum_j=1^n logf_jendalign
therefore,
beginalign fracy'y= sum_j=1^n fracf_j'f_j endalign
hence
beginalign y'&=sum_j=1^n fracyf_j'f_j\
&= sum_j=1^n left(f_j'(x)prod_stackrel1leq ileq nineq jf_j(x)right) endalign
edited Jul 18 at 16:54
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:42
user140776user140776
1,0625 silver badges14 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: The "easy way" given in this answer is simply wrong. It fails when $u$ is the constant zero function, among many other problems.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 7:15
$begingroup$
@user218120: The answer starts at "With regard to where you went wrong", everything before that is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 7:32
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: Yes the second half attempts to explain what went wrong in the asker's question, which is a good thing. But I don't consider a post that is half wrong to be a correct answer, as readers are typically incapable of identifying what is wrong. I'll wait for user140776 to remove the incorrect first half.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 8:20
$begingroup$
It is the only answer that gives an answer to the real question ("it is in the second line"), and it gives a correct answer to that. I agree that the answer would improve if the first part is removed, because it is irrelevant, and also wrong. But this answer is better than the other 'anwers' that don't answer the question.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:22
$begingroup$
That $log$ thing may be formally wrong but it is also an excellent mnemonic, especially when you apply the same principle to $y=frac u v$, which is hell to memorise otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Martin Kochanski
Jul 18 at 11:40
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
With regard to where you went wrong in your original posting, it is in the second line. You have writen a limit of the form $infty -infty$ which is indeterminate. Remember, $x$ is fixed, so $u(x), v(x)$ are also fixed, therefore, the factor $fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x$ of the first term in line 4 and $fracu(x)Delta x$ of the second term of line 4 have infinite limits as $Delta x rightarrow 0$. But really, you already had this error present from line 2.
I want to mention another way to 'arrive' at the product rule using logarithms. It is important to recognize that this is not a proof, except when the functions $u,v$ are strictly positive. However, it is a convenient symbolic way to recall the product rule (a useful mnemonic). If $y=uv$ then
beginalign logy&=loguv&\
&=logu +logvendalign
Hence,
$fracy'y=fracu'u+fracv'v$
Now, multiply by $y$ and you get $y'=u'v+v'u$. Again, this is not a proof of the general product rule, but other posters have already given satisfactory explanations using the difference quotient definition.
I personally like this method because it also works to produce a formula for the derivative of a product of an arbitrary finite number of functions (provided that all of these functions are strictly positive!).
If $y=prod_j=1^n f_j$ then
beginalign logy&=logprod_j=1^n f_j&\
&= sum_j=1^n logf_jendalign
therefore,
beginalign fracy'y= sum_j=1^n fracf_j'f_j endalign
hence
beginalign y'&=sum_j=1^n fracyf_j'f_j\
&= sum_j=1^n left(f_j'(x)prod_stackrel1leq ileq nineq jf_j(x)right) endalign
edited Jul 18 at 16:54
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:42
user140776user140776
1,0625 silver badges14 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: The "easy way" given in this answer is simply wrong. It fails when $u$ is the constant zero function, among many other problems.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 7:15
$begingroup$
@user218120: The answer starts at "With regard to where you went wrong", everything before that is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 7:32
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: Yes the second half attempts to explain what went wrong in the asker's question, which is a good thing. But I don't consider a post that is half wrong to be a correct answer, as readers are typically incapable of identifying what is wrong. I'll wait for user140776 to remove the incorrect first half.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 8:20
$begingroup$
It is the only answer that gives an answer to the real question ("it is in the second line"), and it gives a correct answer to that. I agree that the answer would improve if the first part is removed, because it is irrelevant, and also wrong. But this answer is better than the other 'anwers' that don't answer the question.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:22
$begingroup$
That $log$ thing may be formally wrong but it is also an excellent mnemonic, especially when you apply the same principle to $y=frac u v$, which is hell to memorise otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Martin Kochanski
Jul 18 at 11:40
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
With regard to where you went wrong in your original posting, it is in the second line. You have writen a limit of the form $infty -infty$ which is indeterminate. Remember, $x$ is fixed, so $u(x), v(x)$ are also fixed, therefore, the factor $fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x$ of the first term in line 4 and $fracu(x)Delta x$ of the second term of line 4 have infinite limits as $Delta x rightarrow 0$. But really, you already had this error present from line 2.
I want to mention another way to 'arrive' at the product rule using logarithms. It is important to recognize that this is not a proof, except when the functions $u,v$ are strictly positive. However, it is a convenient symbolic way to recall the product rule (a useful mnemonic). If $y=uv$ then
beginalign logy&=loguv&\
&=logu +logvendalign
Hence,
$fracy'y=fracu'u+fracv'v$
Now, multiply by $y$ and you get $y'=u'v+v'u$. Again, this is not a proof of the general product rule, but other posters have already given satisfactory explanations using the difference quotient definition.
I personally like this method because it also works to produce a formula for the derivative of a product of an arbitrary finite number of functions (provided that all of these functions are strictly positive!).
If $y=prod_j=1^n f_j$ then
beginalign logy&=logprod_j=1^n f_j&\
&= sum_j=1^n logf_jendalign
therefore,
beginalign fracy'y= sum_j=1^n fracf_j'f_j endalign
hence
beginalign y'&=sum_j=1^n fracyf_j'f_j\
&= sum_j=1^n left(f_j'(x)prod_stackrel1leq ileq nineq jf_j(x)right) endalign
edited Jul 18 at 16:54
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:42
user140776user140776
1,0625 silver badges14 bronze badges
$endgroup$
With regard to where you went wrong in your original posting, it is in the second line. You have writen a limit of the form $infty -infty$ which is indeterminate. Remember, $x$ is fixed, so $u(x), v(x)$ are also fixed, therefore, the factor $fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x$ of the first term in line 4 and $fracu(x)Delta x$ of the second term of line 4 have infinite limits as $Delta x rightarrow 0$. But really, you already had this error present from line 2.
I want to mention another way to 'arrive' at the product rule using logarithms. It is important to recognize that this is not a proof, except when the functions $u,v$ are strictly positive. However, it is a convenient symbolic way to recall the product rule (a useful mnemonic). If $y=uv$ then
beginalign logy&=loguv&\
&=logu +logvendalign
Hence,
$fracy'y=fracu'u+fracv'v$
Now, multiply by $y$ and you get $y'=u'v+v'u$. Again, this is not a proof of the general product rule, but other posters have already given satisfactory explanations using the difference quotient definition.
I personally like this method because it also works to produce a formula for the derivative of a product of an arbitrary finite number of functions (provided that all of these functions are strictly positive!).
If $y=prod_j=1^n f_j$ then
beginalign logy&=logprod_j=1^n f_j&\
&= sum_j=1^n logf_jendalign
therefore,
beginalign fracy'y= sum_j=1^n fracf_j'f_j endalign
hence
beginalign y'&=sum_j=1^n fracyf_j'f_j\
&= sum_j=1^n left(f_j'(x)prod_stackrel1leq ileq nineq jf_j(x)right) endalign
edited Jul 18 at 16:54
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:42
user140776user140776
1,0625 silver badges14 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 16:54
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 16:54
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 16:54
user21820
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
41.9k5 gold badges48 silver badges170 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:42
user140776user140776
1,0625 silver badges14 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:42
user140776user140776
1,0625 silver badges14 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:42
user140776user140776
1,0625 silver badges14 bronze badges
1,0625 silver badges14 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: The "easy way" given in this answer is simply wrong. It fails when $u$ is the constant zero function, among many other problems.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 7:15
$begingroup$
@user218120: The answer starts at "With regard to where you went wrong", everything before that is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 7:32
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: Yes the second half attempts to explain what went wrong in the asker's question, which is a good thing. But I don't consider a post that is half wrong to be a correct answer, as readers are typically incapable of identifying what is wrong. I'll wait for user140776 to remove the incorrect first half.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 8:20
$begingroup$
It is the only answer that gives an answer to the real question ("it is in the second line"), and it gives a correct answer to that. I agree that the answer would improve if the first part is removed, because it is irrelevant, and also wrong. But this answer is better than the other 'anwers' that don't answer the question.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:22
$begingroup$
That $log$ thing may be formally wrong but it is also an excellent mnemonic, especially when you apply the same principle to $y=frac u v$, which is hell to memorise otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Martin Kochanski
Jul 18 at 11:40
|
show 4 more comments
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: The "easy way" given in this answer is simply wrong. It fails when $u$ is the constant zero function, among many other problems.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 7:15
$begingroup$
@user218120: The answer starts at "With regard to where you went wrong", everything before that is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 7:32
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: Yes the second half attempts to explain what went wrong in the asker's question, which is a good thing. But I don't consider a post that is half wrong to be a correct answer, as readers are typically incapable of identifying what is wrong. I'll wait for user140776 to remove the incorrect first half.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 8:20
$begingroup$
It is the only answer that gives an answer to the real question ("it is in the second line"), and it gives a correct answer to that. I agree that the answer would improve if the first part is removed, because it is irrelevant, and also wrong. But this answer is better than the other 'anwers' that don't answer the question.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:22
$begingroup$
That $log$ thing may be formally wrong but it is also an excellent mnemonic, especially when you apply the same principle to $y=frac u v$, which is hell to memorise otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Martin Kochanski
Jul 18 at 11:40
1
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: The "easy way" given in this answer is simply wrong. It fails when $u$ is the constant zero function, among many other problems.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 7:15
$begingroup$
@Pakk: The "easy way" given in this answer is simply wrong. It fails when $u$ is the constant zero function, among many other problems.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 7:15
$begingroup$
@user218120: The answer starts at "With regard to where you went wrong", everything before that is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 7:32
$begingroup$
@user218120: The answer starts at "With regard to where you went wrong", everything before that is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 7:32
1
1
$begingroup$
@Pakk: Yes the second half attempts to explain what went wrong in the asker's question, which is a good thing. But I don't consider a post that is half wrong to be a correct answer, as readers are typically incapable of identifying what is wrong. I'll wait for user140776 to remove the incorrect first half.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 8:20
$begingroup$
@Pakk: Yes the second half attempts to explain what went wrong in the asker's question, which is a good thing. But I don't consider a post that is half wrong to be a correct answer, as readers are typically incapable of identifying what is wrong. I'll wait for user140776 to remove the incorrect first half.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jul 18 at 8:20
$begingroup$
It is the only answer that gives an answer to the real question ("it is in the second line"), and it gives a correct answer to that. I agree that the answer would improve if the first part is removed, because it is irrelevant, and also wrong. But this answer is better than the other 'anwers' that don't answer the question.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:22
$begingroup$
It is the only answer that gives an answer to the real question ("it is in the second line"), and it gives a correct answer to that. I agree that the answer would improve if the first part is removed, because it is irrelevant, and also wrong. But this answer is better than the other 'anwers' that don't answer the question.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:22
$begingroup$
That $log$ thing may be formally wrong but it is also an excellent mnemonic, especially when you apply the same principle to $y=frac u v$, which is hell to memorise otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Martin Kochanski
Jul 18 at 11:40
$begingroup$
That $log$ thing may be formally wrong but it is also an excellent mnemonic, especially when you apply the same principle to $y=frac u v$, which is hell to memorise otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Martin Kochanski
Jul 18 at 11:40
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I find your notation very cumbersome. Now, taking into account that differentiability implies continuity, we can write
$$fracf(x)g(x)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=fracf(x)g(x)-f(x)g(x_0)+f(x)g(x_0)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=$$
$$=f(x)fracg(x)-g(x_0)x-x_0+fracf(x)-f(x_0)x-x_0g(x)xrightarrow[xto x_0]f(x_0)g'(x_0)+f'(x_0)g(x_0)$$
Complete details. The above is the easiest proof I know of the product rule for derivative. The trick in the first step is also used in general limits.
answered Jul 17 at 22:31
DonAntonioDonAntonio
184k14 gold badges98 silver badges235 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, I know. But for some reason this addition-subtraction step wasn't the first that came to my mind when I decided to do this derivation as a warmup. For me in most cases it's unclear what exactly should I add and subtract to simplify the expression, so usually I prefer to evade such methods.
$endgroup$
– TeiReiDa
Jul 17 at 23:05
$begingroup$
That preference is okay, but sometimes it is unevadable. After all, you need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$. $$lim_hto 0tfrac[uv](x+h)-[uv](x)h=u(x)lim_hto 0 tfracv(x+h)-v(x)h+v(x)lim_hto 0tfracu(x+h)-u(x)h$$ [The trick is recognising $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$]
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jul 17 at 23:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I find your notation very cumbersome. Now, taking into account that differentiability implies continuity, we can write
$$fracf(x)g(x)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=fracf(x)g(x)-f(x)g(x_0)+f(x)g(x_0)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=$$
$$=f(x)fracg(x)-g(x_0)x-x_0+fracf(x)-f(x_0)x-x_0g(x)xrightarrow[xto x_0]f(x_0)g'(x_0)+f'(x_0)g(x_0)$$
Complete details. The above is the easiest proof I know of the product rule for derivative. The trick in the first step is also used in general limits.
answered Jul 17 at 22:31
DonAntonioDonAntonio
184k14 gold badges98 silver badges235 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, I know. But for some reason this addition-subtraction step wasn't the first that came to my mind when I decided to do this derivation as a warmup. For me in most cases it's unclear what exactly should I add and subtract to simplify the expression, so usually I prefer to evade such methods.
$endgroup$
– TeiReiDa
Jul 17 at 23:05
$begingroup$
That preference is okay, but sometimes it is unevadable. After all, you need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$. $$lim_hto 0tfrac[uv](x+h)-[uv](x)h=u(x)lim_hto 0 tfracv(x+h)-v(x)h+v(x)lim_hto 0tfracu(x+h)-u(x)h$$ [The trick is recognising $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$]
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jul 17 at 23:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I find your notation very cumbersome. Now, taking into account that differentiability implies continuity, we can write
$$fracf(x)g(x)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=fracf(x)g(x)-f(x)g(x_0)+f(x)g(x_0)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=$$
$$=f(x)fracg(x)-g(x_0)x-x_0+fracf(x)-f(x_0)x-x_0g(x)xrightarrow[xto x_0]f(x_0)g'(x_0)+f'(x_0)g(x_0)$$
Complete details. The above is the easiest proof I know of the product rule for derivative. The trick in the first step is also used in general limits.
answered Jul 17 at 22:31
DonAntonioDonAntonio
184k14 gold badges98 silver badges235 bronze badges
$endgroup$
I find your notation very cumbersome. Now, taking into account that differentiability implies continuity, we can write
$$fracf(x)g(x)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=fracf(x)g(x)-f(x)g(x_0)+f(x)g(x_0)-f(x_0)g(x_0)x-x_0=$$
$$=f(x)fracg(x)-g(x_0)x-x_0+fracf(x)-f(x_0)x-x_0g(x)xrightarrow[xto x_0]f(x_0)g'(x_0)+f'(x_0)g(x_0)$$
Complete details. The above is the easiest proof I know of the product rule for derivative. The trick in the first step is also used in general limits.
answered Jul 17 at 22:31
DonAntonioDonAntonio
184k14 gold badges98 silver badges235 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:31
DonAntonioDonAntonio
184k14 gold badges98 silver badges235 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:31
DonAntonioDonAntonio
184k14 gold badges98 silver badges235 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 22:31
DonAntonioDonAntonio
184k14 gold badges98 silver badges235 bronze badges
184k14 gold badges98 silver badges235 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Yes, I know. But for some reason this addition-subtraction step wasn't the first that came to my mind when I decided to do this derivation as a warmup. For me in most cases it's unclear what exactly should I add and subtract to simplify the expression, so usually I prefer to evade such methods.
$endgroup$
– TeiReiDa
Jul 17 at 23:05
$begingroup$
That preference is okay, but sometimes it is unevadable. After all, you need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$. $$lim_hto 0tfrac[uv](x+h)-[uv](x)h=u(x)lim_hto 0 tfracv(x+h)-v(x)h+v(x)lim_hto 0tfracu(x+h)-u(x)h$$ [The trick is recognising $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$]
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jul 17 at 23:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, I know. But for some reason this addition-subtraction step wasn't the first that came to my mind when I decided to do this derivation as a warmup. For me in most cases it's unclear what exactly should I add and subtract to simplify the expression, so usually I prefer to evade such methods.
$endgroup$
– TeiReiDa
Jul 17 at 23:05
$begingroup$
That preference is okay, but sometimes it is unevadable. After all, you need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$. $$lim_hto 0tfrac[uv](x+h)-[uv](x)h=u(x)lim_hto 0 tfracv(x+h)-v(x)h+v(x)lim_hto 0tfracu(x+h)-u(x)h$$ [The trick is recognising $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$]
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jul 17 at 23:24
$begingroup$
Yes, I know. But for some reason this addition-subtraction step wasn't the first that came to my mind when I decided to do this derivation as a warmup. For me in most cases it's unclear what exactly should I add and subtract to simplify the expression, so usually I prefer to evade such methods.
$endgroup$
– TeiReiDa
Jul 17 at 23:05
$begingroup$
Yes, I know. But for some reason this addition-subtraction step wasn't the first that came to my mind when I decided to do this derivation as a warmup. For me in most cases it's unclear what exactly should I add and subtract to simplify the expression, so usually I prefer to evade such methods.
$endgroup$
– TeiReiDa
Jul 17 at 23:05
$begingroup$
That preference is okay, but sometimes it is unevadable. After all, you need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$. $$lim_hto 0tfrac[uv](x+h)-[uv](x)h=u(x)lim_hto 0 tfracv(x+h)-v(x)h+v(x)lim_hto 0tfracu(x+h)-u(x)h$$ [The trick is recognising $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$]
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jul 17 at 23:24
$begingroup$
That preference is okay, but sometimes it is unevadable. After all, you need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$. $$lim_hto 0tfrac[uv](x+h)-[uv](x)h=u(x)lim_hto 0 tfracv(x+h)-v(x)h+v(x)lim_hto 0tfracu(x+h)-u(x)h$$ [The trick is recognising $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$]
$endgroup$
– Graham Kemp
Jul 17 at 23:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This has been pointed out in comments already, but the error in the proof is introduced in this step:
$$ lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x.$$
Neither of these limits exists (in both cases the quantity goes to infinity),
so the difference is indeterminate. Once you start manipulating such a thing as if such limits were valid, it is likely to come out to any number of wrong answers. By inserting a couple more steps afterward, you could reduce the entire expression to zero.
Taking the idea that a $u'$ has to do with the change in $u$ over the change in $x$, write $Delta u = u(x+Delta x) - u(x).$
Likewise write $Delta v = v(x+Delta x) - v(x).$
That is, $u(x+Delta x) = u(x) + Delta u$ and $v(x+Delta x) = v(x) + Delta v.$
Now plug this into your first formula and plod along without knowing where we're going until we get there.
beginalign
(uv)'
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x + Delta x)v(x + Delta x) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x) + Delta u)(v(x) + Delta v) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x)v(x) + (Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
endalign
Now observe that
beginalign
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x) - u(x)Delta x = u'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracv(x+Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = v'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x
&= left(lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta xright)
left(lim_Delta xto0 Delta vright) = 0
endalign
since $lim_Delta xto0 Delta v = 0.$
Putting all of this together,
beginalign
(uv)'
&= v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
+ u(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
+ lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
&= v(x) u'(x) + u(x) v'(x) + 0 \
&= u' v + u v'.
endalign
No tricks with adding and subtracting a mysterious term or other great inspiration, just distribution of multiplication over addition and beating on the monster until it's dead.
Personally I like the more inspired solutions, but sometimes when you're stuck for inspiration you can just push your way through.
answered Jul 18 at 0:45
David KDavid K
58.4k4 gold badges46 silver badges130 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This would be a great answer to the question "How to derive the product rule?". Sadly, a different question was asked, that is not answered in this post.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:26
2
$begingroup$
@Pakk At the time I posted, I was aware that the question "where is the mistake" had already been answered, so I chose not to repeat that part of the answer. I merely answered the next obvious question, "How could I have derived the product rule directly without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$?" But since the accepted answer turns out only partially correct, I've added to this one.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 18 at 11:18
$begingroup$
And now, this answer is the best answer. I'm happy. Have a great day!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 11:43
$begingroup$
Typographical error: $$lim_Delta x to 0 fracDelta vDelta x = lim_Delta x to 0 fracv(x + Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = colorredv'(x)$$
$endgroup$
– N. F. Taussig
Jul 19 at 9:01
$begingroup$
@N.F.Taussig Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 19 at 11:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This has been pointed out in comments already, but the error in the proof is introduced in this step:
$$ lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x.$$
Neither of these limits exists (in both cases the quantity goes to infinity),
so the difference is indeterminate. Once you start manipulating such a thing as if such limits were valid, it is likely to come out to any number of wrong answers. By inserting a couple more steps afterward, you could reduce the entire expression to zero.
Taking the idea that a $u'$ has to do with the change in $u$ over the change in $x$, write $Delta u = u(x+Delta x) - u(x).$
Likewise write $Delta v = v(x+Delta x) - v(x).$
That is, $u(x+Delta x) = u(x) + Delta u$ and $v(x+Delta x) = v(x) + Delta v.$
Now plug this into your first formula and plod along without knowing where we're going until we get there.
beginalign
(uv)'
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x + Delta x)v(x + Delta x) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x) + Delta u)(v(x) + Delta v) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x)v(x) + (Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
endalign
Now observe that
beginalign
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x) - u(x)Delta x = u'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracv(x+Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = v'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x
&= left(lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta xright)
left(lim_Delta xto0 Delta vright) = 0
endalign
since $lim_Delta xto0 Delta v = 0.$
Putting all of this together,
beginalign
(uv)'
&= v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
+ u(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
+ lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
&= v(x) u'(x) + u(x) v'(x) + 0 \
&= u' v + u v'.
endalign
No tricks with adding and subtracting a mysterious term or other great inspiration, just distribution of multiplication over addition and beating on the monster until it's dead.
Personally I like the more inspired solutions, but sometimes when you're stuck for inspiration you can just push your way through.
answered Jul 18 at 0:45
David KDavid K
58.4k4 gold badges46 silver badges130 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This would be a great answer to the question "How to derive the product rule?". Sadly, a different question was asked, that is not answered in this post.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:26
2
$begingroup$
@Pakk At the time I posted, I was aware that the question "where is the mistake" had already been answered, so I chose not to repeat that part of the answer. I merely answered the next obvious question, "How could I have derived the product rule directly without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$?" But since the accepted answer turns out only partially correct, I've added to this one.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 18 at 11:18
$begingroup$
And now, this answer is the best answer. I'm happy. Have a great day!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 11:43
$begingroup$
Typographical error: $$lim_Delta x to 0 fracDelta vDelta x = lim_Delta x to 0 fracv(x + Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = colorredv'(x)$$
$endgroup$
– N. F. Taussig
Jul 19 at 9:01
$begingroup$
@N.F.Taussig Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 19 at 11:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This has been pointed out in comments already, but the error in the proof is introduced in this step:
$$ lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x.$$
Neither of these limits exists (in both cases the quantity goes to infinity),
so the difference is indeterminate. Once you start manipulating such a thing as if such limits were valid, it is likely to come out to any number of wrong answers. By inserting a couple more steps afterward, you could reduce the entire expression to zero.
Taking the idea that a $u'$ has to do with the change in $u$ over the change in $x$, write $Delta u = u(x+Delta x) - u(x).$
Likewise write $Delta v = v(x+Delta x) - v(x).$
That is, $u(x+Delta x) = u(x) + Delta u$ and $v(x+Delta x) = v(x) + Delta v.$
Now plug this into your first formula and plod along without knowing where we're going until we get there.
beginalign
(uv)'
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x + Delta x)v(x + Delta x) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x) + Delta u)(v(x) + Delta v) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x)v(x) + (Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
endalign
Now observe that
beginalign
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x) - u(x)Delta x = u'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracv(x+Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = v'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x
&= left(lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta xright)
left(lim_Delta xto0 Delta vright) = 0
endalign
since $lim_Delta xto0 Delta v = 0.$
Putting all of this together,
beginalign
(uv)'
&= v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
+ u(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
+ lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
&= v(x) u'(x) + u(x) v'(x) + 0 \
&= u' v + u v'.
endalign
No tricks with adding and subtracting a mysterious term or other great inspiration, just distribution of multiplication over addition and beating on the monster until it's dead.
Personally I like the more inspired solutions, but sometimes when you're stuck for inspiration you can just push your way through.
answered Jul 18 at 0:45
David KDavid K
58.4k4 gold badges46 silver badges130 bronze badges
$endgroup$
This has been pointed out in comments already, but the error in the proof is introduced in this step:
$$ lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x.$$
Neither of these limits exists (in both cases the quantity goes to infinity),
so the difference is indeterminate. Once you start manipulating such a thing as if such limits were valid, it is likely to come out to any number of wrong answers. By inserting a couple more steps afterward, you could reduce the entire expression to zero.
Taking the idea that a $u'$ has to do with the change in $u$ over the change in $x$, write $Delta u = u(x+Delta x) - u(x).$
Likewise write $Delta v = v(x+Delta x) - v(x).$
That is, $u(x+Delta x) = u(x) + Delta u$ and $v(x+Delta x) = v(x) + Delta v.$
Now plug this into your first formula and plod along without knowing where we're going until we get there.
beginalign
(uv)'
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x + Delta x)v(x + Delta x) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x) + Delta u)(v(x) + Delta v) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(u(x)v(x) + (Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)) - u(x)v(x)Delta x \
&= lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)v(x) + u(x)(Delta v)
+ (Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
endalign
Now observe that
beginalign
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x) - u(x)Delta x = u'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
&= lim_Delta xto0 fracv(x+Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = v'(x), \
lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x
&= left(lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta xright)
left(lim_Delta xto0 Delta vright) = 0
endalign
since $lim_Delta xto0 Delta v = 0.$
Putting all of this together,
beginalign
(uv)'
&= v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta uDelta x
+ u(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracDelta vDelta x
+ lim_Delta xto0 frac(Delta u)(Delta v)Delta x \
&= v(x) u'(x) + u(x) v'(x) + 0 \
&= u' v + u v'.
endalign
No tricks with adding and subtracting a mysterious term or other great inspiration, just distribution of multiplication over addition and beating on the monster until it's dead.
Personally I like the more inspired solutions, but sometimes when you're stuck for inspiration you can just push your way through.
answered Jul 18 at 0:45
David KDavid K
58.4k4 gold badges46 silver badges130 bronze badges
edited Jul 19 at 11:10
answered Jul 18 at 0:45
David KDavid K
58.4k4 gold badges46 silver badges130 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 0:45
David KDavid K
58.4k4 gold badges46 silver badges130 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 0:45
David KDavid K
58.4k4 gold badges46 silver badges130 bronze badges
58.4k4 gold badges46 silver badges130 bronze badges
$begingroup$
This would be a great answer to the question "How to derive the product rule?". Sadly, a different question was asked, that is not answered in this post.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:26
2
$begingroup$
@Pakk At the time I posted, I was aware that the question "where is the mistake" had already been answered, so I chose not to repeat that part of the answer. I merely answered the next obvious question, "How could I have derived the product rule directly without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$?" But since the accepted answer turns out only partially correct, I've added to this one.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 18 at 11:18
$begingroup$
And now, this answer is the best answer. I'm happy. Have a great day!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 11:43
$begingroup$
Typographical error: $$lim_Delta x to 0 fracDelta vDelta x = lim_Delta x to 0 fracv(x + Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = colorredv'(x)$$
$endgroup$
– N. F. Taussig
Jul 19 at 9:01
$begingroup$
@N.F.Taussig Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 19 at 11:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This would be a great answer to the question "How to derive the product rule?". Sadly, a different question was asked, that is not answered in this post.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:26
2
$begingroup$
@Pakk At the time I posted, I was aware that the question "where is the mistake" had already been answered, so I chose not to repeat that part of the answer. I merely answered the next obvious question, "How could I have derived the product rule directly without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$?" But since the accepted answer turns out only partially correct, I've added to this one.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 18 at 11:18
$begingroup$
And now, this answer is the best answer. I'm happy. Have a great day!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 11:43
$begingroup$
Typographical error: $$lim_Delta x to 0 fracDelta vDelta x = lim_Delta x to 0 fracv(x + Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = colorredv'(x)$$
$endgroup$
– N. F. Taussig
Jul 19 at 9:01
$begingroup$
@N.F.Taussig Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 19 at 11:10
$begingroup$
This would be a great answer to the question "How to derive the product rule?". Sadly, a different question was asked, that is not answered in this post.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:26
$begingroup$
This would be a great answer to the question "How to derive the product rule?". Sadly, a different question was asked, that is not answered in this post.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:26
2
2
$begingroup$
@Pakk At the time I posted, I was aware that the question "where is the mistake" had already been answered, so I chose not to repeat that part of the answer. I merely answered the next obvious question, "How could I have derived the product rule directly without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$?" But since the accepted answer turns out only partially correct, I've added to this one.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 18 at 11:18
$begingroup$
@Pakk At the time I posted, I was aware that the question "where is the mistake" had already been answered, so I chose not to repeat that part of the answer. I merely answered the next obvious question, "How could I have derived the product rule directly without adding $f(x)g(x+Delta x)-f(x)g(x+Delta x)$?" But since the accepted answer turns out only partially correct, I've added to this one.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 18 at 11:18
$begingroup$
And now, this answer is the best answer. I'm happy. Have a great day!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 11:43
$begingroup$
And now, this answer is the best answer. I'm happy. Have a great day!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 11:43
$begingroup$
Typographical error: $$lim_Delta x to 0 fracDelta vDelta x = lim_Delta x to 0 fracv(x + Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = colorredv'(x)$$
$endgroup$
– N. F. Taussig
Jul 19 at 9:01
$begingroup$
Typographical error: $$lim_Delta x to 0 fracDelta vDelta x = lim_Delta x to 0 fracv(x + Delta x) - v(x)Delta x = colorredv'(x)$$
$endgroup$
– N. F. Taussig
Jul 19 at 9:01
$begingroup$
@N.F.Taussig Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 19 at 11:10
$begingroup$
@N.F.Taussig Thanks for spotting that. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– David K
Jul 19 at 11:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As others have pointed out, and to make @Pakk happy, the error is in the second line. Now I'm going to go on and answer the question you didn't ask, but probably should have:
How could I, too, learn to detect where the error is?
Well, you know that $(uv)' = u'v + u v'$, right? But you've "proved" that $(uv)' = u'v$. So if you can find functions with $uv' ne 0$, the two right-hand-sides will be different. There are a lot of functions $u$ and $v$ with $uv' ne 0$ of course, but picking a really simple pair will make things especially easy to de-bug. So let's pick $u$ to be a constant: $u(x) = 1$, and $v$ to be something whose derivative is constant: $v(x) = x$. Now let's look at your "proof" for those two functions. I'm just going to substitute in these particular values for $u$ and $v$ (or their derivatives) wherever they occur in your sequence of limits:
beginalign
(uv)' & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)-u(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x+Delta x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x) \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xv(x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xv(x) \
& = v(x)(lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta x) \
& = v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)-u(x)Delta x \
& = u'v
endalign
becomes (when we evaluate at $x = 1$, which is as good a place as any):
beginalign
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(1+Delta x)v(1+Delta x)-u(1)v(1)Delta x \
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot (1+Delta x)-1 cdot 1Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot(1+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot 1Delta x \
ldots
endalign
and now suddenly the "bug" jumps out at you: the thing on the second line, which is $1$, is not at all what you've got on the third line, which is a difference of two limits that don't exist.
By the way, a different bug, namely that the left-hand side of what you wrote is a function, while the right-hand side, if the limit exists, is a real number, also becomes pretty obvious when you try to check things this way. The LHS of your sequence of equalities should have been $(uv)'(x)$, not $(uv)'$. I swept that error under the rug with my "when we evaluate at $x = 1$..." remark so that I could get to demonstrating the more useful skill.
Short summary: If you've proved something general that you suspect is wrong, find a specific example where it appears to produce the wrong answer, and trace that example through your supposed "proof" to find the error (if there is one).
answered Jul 18 at 12:05
John HughesJohn Hughes
68.1k2 gold badges44 silver badges99 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
very nice and immensely useful last paragraph! +1
$endgroup$
– peek-a-boo
Jul 18 at 12:10
1
$begingroup$
I am even happier than I was before, this day is the highlight of my life!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 19:37
$begingroup$
While I was being silly in my answer, I actually share your frustration about people answering the wrong question.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Jul 18 at 19:57
1
$begingroup$
In highschool I had a bad teacher, who never explained what was wrong about a failed attempt, but just showef his preferred method. I saw classmates passing the tests because they did what he told, while never understanding why they should do it in that way, and they understandably started to hate mathematics. They were trained to not think about it, and just memorize what the teacher said. That is the source of my frustration when the attempt is ignored, and another method is given.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 20 at 17:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As others have pointed out, and to make @Pakk happy, the error is in the second line. Now I'm going to go on and answer the question you didn't ask, but probably should have:
How could I, too, learn to detect where the error is?
Well, you know that $(uv)' = u'v + u v'$, right? But you've "proved" that $(uv)' = u'v$. So if you can find functions with $uv' ne 0$, the two right-hand-sides will be different. There are a lot of functions $u$ and $v$ with $uv' ne 0$ of course, but picking a really simple pair will make things especially easy to de-bug. So let's pick $u$ to be a constant: $u(x) = 1$, and $v$ to be something whose derivative is constant: $v(x) = x$. Now let's look at your "proof" for those two functions. I'm just going to substitute in these particular values for $u$ and $v$ (or their derivatives) wherever they occur in your sequence of limits:
beginalign
(uv)' & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)-u(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x+Delta x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x) \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xv(x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xv(x) \
& = v(x)(lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta x) \
& = v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)-u(x)Delta x \
& = u'v
endalign
becomes (when we evaluate at $x = 1$, which is as good a place as any):
beginalign
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(1+Delta x)v(1+Delta x)-u(1)v(1)Delta x \
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot (1+Delta x)-1 cdot 1Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot(1+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot 1Delta x \
ldots
endalign
and now suddenly the "bug" jumps out at you: the thing on the second line, which is $1$, is not at all what you've got on the third line, which is a difference of two limits that don't exist.
By the way, a different bug, namely that the left-hand side of what you wrote is a function, while the right-hand side, if the limit exists, is a real number, also becomes pretty obvious when you try to check things this way. The LHS of your sequence of equalities should have been $(uv)'(x)$, not $(uv)'$. I swept that error under the rug with my "when we evaluate at $x = 1$..." remark so that I could get to demonstrating the more useful skill.
Short summary: If you've proved something general that you suspect is wrong, find a specific example where it appears to produce the wrong answer, and trace that example through your supposed "proof" to find the error (if there is one).
answered Jul 18 at 12:05
John HughesJohn Hughes
68.1k2 gold badges44 silver badges99 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
very nice and immensely useful last paragraph! +1
$endgroup$
– peek-a-boo
Jul 18 at 12:10
1
$begingroup$
I am even happier than I was before, this day is the highlight of my life!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 19:37
$begingroup$
While I was being silly in my answer, I actually share your frustration about people answering the wrong question.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Jul 18 at 19:57
1
$begingroup$
In highschool I had a bad teacher, who never explained what was wrong about a failed attempt, but just showef his preferred method. I saw classmates passing the tests because they did what he told, while never understanding why they should do it in that way, and they understandably started to hate mathematics. They were trained to not think about it, and just memorize what the teacher said. That is the source of my frustration when the attempt is ignored, and another method is given.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 20 at 17:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As others have pointed out, and to make @Pakk happy, the error is in the second line. Now I'm going to go on and answer the question you didn't ask, but probably should have:
How could I, too, learn to detect where the error is?
Well, you know that $(uv)' = u'v + u v'$, right? But you've "proved" that $(uv)' = u'v$. So if you can find functions with $uv' ne 0$, the two right-hand-sides will be different. There are a lot of functions $u$ and $v$ with $uv' ne 0$ of course, but picking a really simple pair will make things especially easy to de-bug. So let's pick $u$ to be a constant: $u(x) = 1$, and $v$ to be something whose derivative is constant: $v(x) = x$. Now let's look at your "proof" for those two functions. I'm just going to substitute in these particular values for $u$ and $v$ (or their derivatives) wherever they occur in your sequence of limits:
beginalign
(uv)' & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)-u(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x+Delta x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x) \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xv(x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xv(x) \
& = v(x)(lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta x) \
& = v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)-u(x)Delta x \
& = u'v
endalign
becomes (when we evaluate at $x = 1$, which is as good a place as any):
beginalign
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(1+Delta x)v(1+Delta x)-u(1)v(1)Delta x \
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot (1+Delta x)-1 cdot 1Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot(1+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot 1Delta x \
ldots
endalign
and now suddenly the "bug" jumps out at you: the thing on the second line, which is $1$, is not at all what you've got on the third line, which is a difference of two limits that don't exist.
By the way, a different bug, namely that the left-hand side of what you wrote is a function, while the right-hand side, if the limit exists, is a real number, also becomes pretty obvious when you try to check things this way. The LHS of your sequence of equalities should have been $(uv)'(x)$, not $(uv)'$. I swept that error under the rug with my "when we evaluate at $x = 1$..." remark so that I could get to demonstrating the more useful skill.
Short summary: If you've proved something general that you suspect is wrong, find a specific example where it appears to produce the wrong answer, and trace that example through your supposed "proof" to find the error (if there is one).
answered Jul 18 at 12:05
John HughesJohn Hughes
68.1k2 gold badges44 silver badges99 bronze badges
$endgroup$
As others have pointed out, and to make @Pakk happy, the error is in the second line. Now I'm going to go on and answer the question you didn't ask, but probably should have:
How could I, too, learn to detect where the error is?
Well, you know that $(uv)' = u'v + u v'$, right? But you've "proved" that $(uv)' = u'v$. So if you can find functions with $uv' ne 0$, the two right-hand-sides will be different. There are a lot of functions $u$ and $v$ with $uv' ne 0$ of course, but picking a really simple pair will make things especially easy to de-bug. So let's pick $u$ to be a constant: $u(x) = 1$, and $v$ to be something whose derivative is constant: $v(x) = x$. Now let's look at your "proof" for those two functions. I'm just going to substitute in these particular values for $u$ and $v$ (or their derivatives) wherever they occur in your sequence of limits:
beginalign
(uv)' & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)-u(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)v(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)v(x)Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x+Delta x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xlim_Delta xto0 v(x) \
& = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta xv(x)-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta xv(x) \
& = v(x)(lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x)Delta x) \
& = v(x)lim_Delta xto0 fracu(x+Delta x)-u(x)Delta x \
& = u'v
endalign
becomes (when we evaluate at $x = 1$, which is as good a place as any):
beginalign
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 fracu(1+Delta x)v(1+Delta x)-u(1)v(1)Delta x \
(uv)'(1) & = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot (1+Delta x)-1 cdot 1Delta x \
& = lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot(1+Delta x)Delta x-lim_Delta xto0 frac1cdot 1Delta x \
ldots
endalign
and now suddenly the "bug" jumps out at you: the thing on the second line, which is $1$, is not at all what you've got on the third line, which is a difference of two limits that don't exist.
By the way, a different bug, namely that the left-hand side of what you wrote is a function, while the right-hand side, if the limit exists, is a real number, also becomes pretty obvious when you try to check things this way. The LHS of your sequence of equalities should have been $(uv)'(x)$, not $(uv)'$. I swept that error under the rug with my "when we evaluate at $x = 1$..." remark so that I could get to demonstrating the more useful skill.
Short summary: If you've proved something general that you suspect is wrong, find a specific example where it appears to produce the wrong answer, and trace that example through your supposed "proof" to find the error (if there is one).
answered Jul 18 at 12:05
John HughesJohn Hughes
68.1k2 gold badges44 silver badges99 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 12:05
John HughesJohn Hughes
68.1k2 gold badges44 silver badges99 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 12:05
John HughesJohn Hughes
68.1k2 gold badges44 silver badges99 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 12:05
John HughesJohn Hughes
68.1k2 gold badges44 silver badges99 bronze badges
68.1k2 gold badges44 silver badges99 bronze badges
$begingroup$
very nice and immensely useful last paragraph! +1
$endgroup$
– peek-a-boo
Jul 18 at 12:10
1
$begingroup$
I am even happier than I was before, this day is the highlight of my life!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 19:37
$begingroup$
While I was being silly in my answer, I actually share your frustration about people answering the wrong question.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Jul 18 at 19:57
1
$begingroup$
In highschool I had a bad teacher, who never explained what was wrong about a failed attempt, but just showef his preferred method. I saw classmates passing the tests because they did what he told, while never understanding why they should do it in that way, and they understandably started to hate mathematics. They were trained to not think about it, and just memorize what the teacher said. That is the source of my frustration when the attempt is ignored, and another method is given.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 20 at 17:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
very nice and immensely useful last paragraph! +1
$endgroup$
– peek-a-boo
Jul 18 at 12:10
1
$begingroup$
I am even happier than I was before, this day is the highlight of my life!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 19:37
$begingroup$
While I was being silly in my answer, I actually share your frustration about people answering the wrong question.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Jul 18 at 19:57
1
$begingroup$
In highschool I had a bad teacher, who never explained what was wrong about a failed attempt, but just showef his preferred method. I saw classmates passing the tests because they did what he told, while never understanding why they should do it in that way, and they understandably started to hate mathematics. They were trained to not think about it, and just memorize what the teacher said. That is the source of my frustration when the attempt is ignored, and another method is given.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 20 at 17:57
$begingroup$
very nice and immensely useful last paragraph! +1
$endgroup$
– peek-a-boo
Jul 18 at 12:10
$begingroup$
very nice and immensely useful last paragraph! +1
$endgroup$
– peek-a-boo
Jul 18 at 12:10
1
1
$begingroup$
I am even happier than I was before, this day is the highlight of my life!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 19:37
$begingroup$
I am even happier than I was before, this day is the highlight of my life!
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 19:37
$begingroup$
While I was being silly in my answer, I actually share your frustration about people answering the wrong question.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Jul 18 at 19:57
$begingroup$
While I was being silly in my answer, I actually share your frustration about people answering the wrong question.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Jul 18 at 19:57
1
1
$begingroup$
In highschool I had a bad teacher, who never explained what was wrong about a failed attempt, but just showef his preferred method. I saw classmates passing the tests because they did what he told, while never understanding why they should do it in that way, and they understandably started to hate mathematics. They were trained to not think about it, and just memorize what the teacher said. That is the source of my frustration when the attempt is ignored, and another method is given.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 20 at 17:57
$begingroup$
In highschool I had a bad teacher, who never explained what was wrong about a failed attempt, but just showef his preferred method. I saw classmates passing the tests because they did what he told, while never understanding why they should do it in that way, and they understandably started to hate mathematics. They were trained to not think about it, and just memorize what the teacher said. That is the source of my frustration when the attempt is ignored, and another method is given.
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 20 at 17:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Remember you may only use the additive and multiplicative rules for limits when you can justify that those limits do have finite convergence. So we just need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$ (or vice versa). This is fairly straight forward, as long as you recognise that: $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$.
$$beginalign[uv'+u'v](x)&=u(x)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&= left(lim_hto 0u(x+h)right)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)left(v(x+h)-v(x)right)+left(u(x+h)-u(x)right)v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto xdfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x+h),v(x)+u(x+h),v(x)-u(x),v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x),v(x)h\[3ex][uv'+u'v](x)&= [uv]'(x)endalign$$
answered Jul 17 at 23:41
Graham KempGraham Kemp
91.4k4 gold badges36 silver badges82 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Remember you may only use the additive and multiplicative rules for limits when you can justify that those limits do have finite convergence. So we just need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$ (or vice versa). This is fairly straight forward, as long as you recognise that: $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$.
$$beginalign[uv'+u'v](x)&=u(x)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&= left(lim_hto 0u(x+h)right)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)left(v(x+h)-v(x)right)+left(u(x+h)-u(x)right)v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto xdfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x+h),v(x)+u(x+h),v(x)-u(x),v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x),v(x)h\[3ex][uv'+u'v](x)&= [uv]'(x)endalign$$
answered Jul 17 at 23:41
Graham KempGraham Kemp
91.4k4 gold badges36 silver badges82 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Remember you may only use the additive and multiplicative rules for limits when you can justify that those limits do have finite convergence. So we just need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$ (or vice versa). This is fairly straight forward, as long as you recognise that: $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$.
$$beginalign[uv'+u'v](x)&=u(x)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&= left(lim_hto 0u(x+h)right)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)left(v(x+h)-v(x)right)+left(u(x+h)-u(x)right)v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto xdfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x+h),v(x)+u(x+h),v(x)-u(x),v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x),v(x)h\[3ex][uv'+u'v](x)&= [uv]'(x)endalign$$
answered Jul 17 at 23:41
Graham KempGraham Kemp
91.4k4 gold badges36 silver badges82 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Remember you may only use the additive and multiplicative rules for limits when you can justify that those limits do have finite convergence. So we just need to arrange the limit definition of $[uv]'$ into that for $ucdot v'+u'cdot v$ (or vice versa). This is fairly straight forward, as long as you recognise that: $u(x)=limlimits_hto 0u(x+h)$.
$$beginalign[uv'+u'v](x)&=u(x)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&= left(lim_hto 0u(x+h)right)left(lim_hto 0dfracv(x+h)-v(x)hright)+left(lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)-u(x)hright)v(x)
\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h)left(v(x+h)-v(x)right)+left(u(x+h)-u(x)right)v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto xdfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x+h),v(x)+u(x+h),v(x)-u(x),v(x)h\[1ex]&=lim_hto 0dfracu(x+h),v(x+h)-u(x),v(x)h\[3ex][uv'+u'v](x)&= [uv]'(x)endalign$$
answered Jul 17 at 23:41
Graham KempGraham Kemp
91.4k4 gold badges36 silver badges82 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 23:41
Graham KempGraham Kemp
91.4k4 gold badges36 silver badges82 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 23:41
Graham KempGraham Kemp
91.4k4 gold badges36 silver badges82 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 23:41
Graham KempGraham Kemp
91.4k4 gold badges36 silver badges82 bronze badges
91.4k4 gold badges36 silver badges82 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3296189%2fwhere-is-the-mistake-in-my-derivation-of-uv-uv%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
12
$begingroup$
Most of the limits you have written during your working do not exist due to division by zero. Hence this kind of invalidates the working.
$endgroup$
– Peter Foreman
Jul 17 at 22:12
5
$begingroup$
$lim_Delta x rightarrow 0 fracv(x)u(x)Delta x$ is certainly not defined in general
$endgroup$
– Dayton
Jul 17 at 22:13
4
$begingroup$
We can't say that $lim_x to a f(x) - g(x) = lim_x to a f(x) - lim_x to a g(x)$ if either $f$ or $g$ do not have a limit as $x$ approaches $a$.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jul 17 at 22:18
5
$begingroup$
In a 'where is my mistake?'-question like this, why do so many answers ignore that question and just give alternative proofs? Am I the only one bothered by this?
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 6:53
3
$begingroup$
@TeiReiDa, no need to apologize, I think it is a good and clear question, and I don't know why other people interpret it as "please ignore all the work I did and just give me an alternative way to proof this".
$endgroup$
– Pakk
Jul 18 at 10:15