Is it a fallacy ??
Recently, I was doodling in my rough notebook and found something strange:
Let x belong to N (natural no.)
\(x^{2}\) = \(x^{2}\)
=
(Differentiating on both sides)
=
Where was I wrong ??
Note by
Ashwin Upadhyay
6 years ago
No vote yet
1 vote
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*or_italics_**bold**or__bold__paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)> This is a quote# I indented these lines # 4 spaces, and now they show # up as a code block. print "hello world"\(...\)or\[...\]to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 32^{34}a_{i-1}\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{2}\sum_{i=1}^3\sin \theta\boxed{123}Comments
When you are defining x^2=x+x+..+x(x times), you are tacitly defining the domain of f(x) to be N, the set of natural numbers. However, f(x) cannot be differentiable in the domain of N. This is because, if a function f defined from a domain D (a subset of R, the set of reals) to R (the set of reals) has to be differentiable at a real point c, then a necessary criterion is that c has to be a limit point of D and c has to be an element of D itself. In other words, c has to be a member of D such that every arbitrarily small neighbourhood of c has an element of D other than c. But no natural number is a cluster point of the set N. Here lies the fallacy.
Actually you cannot differentiate the function f(x) = x2 when you have selected the Domain as Natural numbers . After all , the Natural numbers as a domain will comprise just discrete points , so it'll not be differentiable.
Log in to reply
Firstly I differentiated it generally but in that case i couldn't write the no. x times as x could be fraction or 0. Thank you now i have understood.
Log in to reply
Anytime . Btw there was a question on this fallacy posted by @Sandeep Bhardwaj sir , I'm not able to find it . I'll give you the link if I'm able to find it .
Log in to reply
BTW i just found another note on this
In fact i found a whole set of such apparent fallacies
Log in to reply
Wow . You've been busy :P
Very good. He is fooling.
When you are differentiating on both sides, you assumed that in x times the x is constant. Also you can't talk abt differention, of non continuous function
Log in to reply
I couldn't understand your first reason.