How good is your understanding of differentiation? \(y=x^2\) can be written as \(y=x*x\) which can also be written as \(y=x+x+x+...+x\) (i.e. "x" lots of x). using this we get:\[\begin{align} y&=x^2\\ \therefore \frac{dy}{dx}&=2x\\ &\text{but we can also write this as:}\\ y&=x+x+x+...+x\quad\text{i.e. "x" lots of x}\\ \therefore \frac{dy}{dx}&=1+1+1+…+1\quad\text{i.e. "x" lots of 1's}\\ &=x\\ \therefore 2x&=x\\ \therefore 2&=1 \end{align}\]where is the mistake in this?

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions.

A community for students.

How good is your understanding of differentiation? \(y=x^2\) can be written as \(y=x*x\) which can also be written as \(y=x+x+x+...+x\) (i.e. "x" lots of x). using this we get:\[\begin{align} y&=x^2\\ \therefore \frac{dy}{dx}&=2x\\ &\text{but we can also write this as:}\\ y&=x+x+x+...+x\quad\text{i.e. "x" lots of x}\\ \therefore \frac{dy}{dx}&=1+1+1+…+1\quad\text{i.e. "x" lots of 1's}\\ &=x\\ \therefore 2x&=x\\ \therefore 2&=1 \end{align}\]where is the mistake in this?

Mathematics
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions

In the equation y=x+x+x..+x, this is not a continuous function, nor differentiable.
it is differentiable and is continuous - just like \(y=x^2\)
Not really. x here can take only integer values, so it's defined from N to R. While y=x^2 is defined from R to R. So they are tow different functions.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

your mistake is that you didn't differentiate the sum of all the x's properly
but I forgot the exact mistake :-P
you can take one and half lots of something
If we put f(x)=y=x+x+..+x (x times), could you tell me what f(0.5) for instance?
f(0.5)=0.5+0.5+... (taken 0.5 times) = 0.25
how can that be?
Yeah, how can that be?
Mr.Math - you are probably correct in the strictest sense, but agdgdgdgwngo is closer to where the mistake is.
how is f(0.5)= 0.25??
f(x)=x^2=x+x+... (taken x times)
or \[\sum_{i=1}^{x}x\]
I didn't what to use that because it implies x must be an integer
oh
What does "taken x times" mean then if not a sum?
but I guess Mr.Math is right - we cannot say x^2=x+x+x+... (x times) for non-integers?
Just quickly 2x=x means x=0, and doesn't mean 2=1.
yes Mr.Math - the real question is, how can I get two different results by differentiating the /same/ function?
x cannot be zero?
at ostensibly the same function
*at least
think of the product rule
I don't think you can differentiate a variable number of terms like that, but I can't seem to apply the right rule.
f(x)=x+x+..+x (x times). The key is "x" times, since we're differentiating with respect to x. If it's f(x)=x+x+..+x ("n" times), what we did would be correct.
Mr.Math has hit the nail on the head!
but which rule exactly are we breaking and how?
the product rule?
then df/dx=(1+1+1..+1)+(1+1+..+1) (x times) for each brackets I think.
right
if you re-did this using the definition of differentiation then you would get the right result. i.e.\[f'(x)=\lim_{h\rightarrow0} \frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}\]
@TuringTest - the being broken is to treat "x" as a constant when it is not
*the rule
Or the chain rule, let x+x+..+x (x times)=u, then we can apply the chain rule I think.
that's what I said, a variable number of terms. I just want to make it concrete in my mind.
I guess I've also learnt a thing or do from your replies on what a continuous function is - thx all
*or two
but at the first place is x+x+x+... xtimes a continuous function to be differentiated?
@Akshay Budhkar - if you use this to evaluate the differential of y = x+x+...+x (x times), then you will get the right answer:\[f'(x)=\lim_{h\rightarrow0} \frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}\]
btw asnaseer who is the guy in your profile pic? I can't stop wondering! :(
that highlights the fact that you cannot treat the x in "x times" as a constant
@agdgdgdgwngo - thats me in the pic - why? do I look odd?
No i was just wondering if the function was continuous, i know that formula, but if a function is not continuous we cannot differentiate it, and i feel this is not a continuous function
yes - Mr.Math pointed that out earlier - I guess I used a bad example of trying to illustrate a specific point :-(
Wait!! \[f'(x)=\lim_{h\to 0}{x+h+x+h+\dots+x+h-x-x-\dots-x \over h}\] \[=\lim_{x\to 0}{xh \over h}=x\]
\(h\to 0\)*
no Mr.Math - the first set of "x+h" terms will appear "x+h" times
This is a old problem.
you came late ffm that is why it is old :P
yes FFM - I came across it several years ago and just recalled it :-)
There has been a discussion on this one, let me do some digging.
you mean here on OS?
Right! \[\lim_{h \to 0}{x+h+x+h+..+x+h-x-x-\dots -x \over h}\] \[=\lim_{h \to 0}{hx+(x+h)h \over h}=2x\]
thats it Mr.Math - well done!
So what is the conclusion of this question ( neglecting the fact that the function is discontinuous) ?
the mistake was in treating the "x" in "x times" as a "constant" when differentiating - this is wrong
yea get it :D
Here is it http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1096/
I wasn't aware of that FFM - I ran into this many many years ago at uni
they mention the integer issue as well...
It's okay, I can't imagine why you mean many many and many :D
;-D

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question