Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Shopping at the store helps maintain the site. Thank you.
Learning Math Online
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards
Interactive Activities

CTK Exchange
CTK Wiki Math
CTK Insights - a blog
Math Help

III Millennium Olympiad

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic
Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Stories for Young
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto  |  Bookstore  |  Contents  |  Amazon store  |  Term index  |  What changed?  |  Contact  |  Recommend
RSS Feed: Recent changes at CTK

All Powers of x are Constant

We are going to prove that for any integer n ≥ 0, (xn)' = 0, where 'prime' means, as is common, the derivative of a function; in this case, f(x) = xn. (We only consider positive x.)

The proof is by induction. To start with, observe that (x0)' = 0 because x0 = 1 is really a constant. Now assume that the statement has been already proved for n = 0, 1, 2, ..., k, and let n = k + 1. Recollect the formula for the derivative of the product of two functions:

(fg)' = f ' g + fg'.

Take f(x) = xk and g(x) = x. Then (fg)(x) = xk + 1 is the function whose derivative we need to calculate:

(xk + 1)' = (xk)' x + xk x' = 0,

because both derivatives above vanish according to the inductive assumption.

What went wrong?

References

  1. E. J. Barbeau, Mathematical Fallacies, Flaws, and Flimflam, MAA, 2000, p. 91

Copyright © 1996-2010 Alexander Bogomolny

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Went Wrong?

Proof by mathematical induction consists of two,one,two,three,foursteps: the base of induction wherein the statement to be proved is verified for one or more first admissible values of the parameter.

The induction is often compared to a chain of upstanding dominoes,dominoes,cubes,pyramids,Santa's reindeersthat fall down one after another once the first one was set in a motion. The second (inductive) step need to be able to continue from the point verified at the first step. Since on the first step we only verified the statement for n = 0, the inductive step ought to be valid and be in a position to continue starting with n = 1!. But in this case, the formula for the product (xk + 1)' = (xk)' x + xk x' becomes (x1)' = (x0)' x + x0 x' = x', which does not prove the statement for n = 1.

Copyright © 1996-2010 Alexander Bogomolny

35707158Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

Search:
Keywords:

Google
Web CTK