7

This seems a bit obvious, but I'm not clear on one part. My teacher had told us $d(x^2) =2xdx$. However on asking why, we were told $d(x^2)= (x+dx)^2-x^2= 2xdx+(dx)^2$. We were told that we can ignore the $(dx)^2$ because its small. For obvious reason I feel this step is wrong, why can we ignore $(dx)^2$, is their any other way of getting the result?

Aatmaj
  • 1,087
  • 6
    Well, it seems like you guys are playing a little fast and loose with the infinitesimals, so think of it like this: if $dx$ is meant to be very very small, then $(dx)^2$ is absurdly small, so small as to be negligible. Like if you square $10^{-10}$, you get something orders of magnitude even smaller back. – PrincessEev Jan 27 '21 at 06:40
  • 1
    @EeveeTrainer I know but that doesn't mean we can remove it completely, if we can remove it why use an equality sign. – Real numbers Jan 27 '21 at 06:43
  • https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4000240/concern-regarding-infinitesimal-errors/4000253#4000253 does this answer your question? you might get hint from here – Aatmaj Jan 27 '21 at 06:47
  • 1
    more references since you are so interested :-) https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2212765/handling-fracdydx-as-a-ratio?r=SearchResults&s=1|104.7736 https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4000745/visualizing-infinitesimals https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4000097/question-regarding-dx-being-infinitely-small https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/703212/is-dx-dy-really-a-multiplication-of-dx-and-dy https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2525211/why-do-people-say-dy-dx-is-not-a-fraction-but-then-use-it-as-one-when-doing-the – Aatmaj Jan 27 '21 at 07:02
  • 2
    It's usual to learn about limits before starting on differentiation. Did your teacher teach you about limits? – PM 2Ring Jan 27 '21 at 07:33
  • @PM2Ring Yeah. And this all was taught almost an year back to me, its just that I got into a discussion with a friend recently which got me wondering whether I have been thinking about this right. – Real numbers Jan 27 '21 at 18:32
  • 1
    Fair enough. In the early days of calculus there was much discussion and debate on the legitimacy of differentials and the processes of differentiation and integration. It took a couple of centuries before Cauchy, Bolzano, and Weierstrasse gave these matters a rigorous basis with the modern $(\epsilon - \delta)$ definition of limits. – PM 2Ring Jan 27 '21 at 21:31
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0_qX4VJhMQ – Aatmaj Jan 28 '21 at 10:59

5 Answers5

4

When treating the differential operator like a fraction, you might see this: $$\frac d {\color{blue}{dx}}(x^2)=2x\implies d(x^2)=2x\,\color{blue}{dx}.$$

Andrew Chin
  • 7,389
3

We have $\Delta(x^2) = 2x \Delta x + (\Delta x)^2$. Note that $x^2 = y$ so, we have $\Delta(x^2) = \Delta y$. Thus, we have $\Delta y = 2x\Delta x +(\Delta x)^2$. Divide both sides by $\Delta x$ and we get $\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} = 2x + \Delta x$. Now, we take the limit as $\Delta x$ approaches $0$, giving us $dy/dx = 2x$. Note that $dy/dx$ is the limit as $\Delta x$ goes to $0$ of $\Delta y/\Delta x$ by definition.

Some Guy
  • 2,687
2

If you think about it in terms of differentials, let $y = x^2$:

$$ dy = \frac{dy}{dx} dx $$

$$ d\left(x^2\right) = \left(\frac{d}{dx}x^2\right) dx $$

$$ d(x^2) = 2xdx $$

Amaan M
  • 2,790
2

by definition: $$\frac{df(x)}{dx}=\lim_{h\to0}\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}\tag{1}$$ if we let $f(x)=x^2$ then we get: $$\frac{d(x^2)}{dx}=\lim_{h\to0}(2x+h)=2x$$ now remember that whilst $dx$ represents a small change, it is non-zero and with the chain rule we can say: $$df=\frac{df}{dx}dx\tag{2}$$ which for us means: $$d(x^2)=2xdx$$


I think where you are getting confused with "ignoring" this $(dx)^2$ term is in finding the limit to define the derivative. There are some other interesting cases that we can derive where we end up with terms like: $$\sin(dx)$$ where we say that this is equal to $dx$ but this is not the same situation. Hope this helps


One interesting way of visualising the derivative is using equal sided shapes (i.e. squares, cubes etc.) and looking at what the change in area/volume/hyper-volume is as we make incremental changes to the lengths of sides. For example, lets take a normal square of side length $x$. The area of this square will be $x^2$. Now lets increase the length of all sides by a small amount $\delta x$. The new length of the sides will be $x+\delta x$, which makes the new area $(x+\delta x)^2$. Now if we expand this out we get: $$A(x)=x^2$$ $$A(x+\delta x)=(x+\delta x)^2+x^2+2x\delta x+(\delta x)^2$$ The change in the area, which we will denote $\delta A$ will be as follows: $$\delta A=2x\delta x+(\delta x)^2$$ teachers often use this to define the derivative by saying "the differential of the area is equal to the change in area divided by the change in side length" and whilst this is true we get given the following expression: $$\frac{\delta A}{\delta x}=2x+\delta x$$ Which can confuse many people as we clearly have this additional $\delta x$ term which does not agree with the limit definition of the derivative at first appearance. However, if you look at the limit we took we did in fact have a term of $h$ left over but since $h\to 0$ it does not change our value of $\frac{df}{dx}$. The same is true when we talk of it in this form, whilst $\delta x$ has a value which is not close to zero we cannot negate it from our equations, but for small enough values the difference in the order of magnitudes between $x$ and $\delta x$ means that as $\delta x$ gets smaller it has an unnoticeable impact on our expression

Henry Lee
  • 12,215
1

By definition, $df$ is the linear part of $\Delta f$ when you give an increment $dx$ to $x$. You first compute $\Delta x^2$ as you did. Then you only keep the linear part in $dx$: $dx^2=2xdx$.

GReyes
  • 16,446
  • 11
  • 16
  • I didn't know this was the definition, we were told it just means a small change. – Real numbers Jan 27 '21 at 06:47
  • df means infinitesimal change, and the answer works only because of whatever eevee trainer has said..................at limit tending towards 0, higher powers of dx tend to 0 faster.... – Aatmaj Jan 27 '21 at 06:49
  • 2
    @Aatmaj That argument explains why dx^2/dx would be 2x, but we have also been told that differentiation is not same as a fraction. Is it really right to just multiply dx both the sides and if yes, then why? – Real numbers Jan 27 '21 at 06:53
  • Here are a few references which may help---https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3899135/concern-regarding-dy-dx https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/143222/what-does-dx-mean https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/21199/is-frac-textrmdy-textrmdx-not-a-ratio?r=SearchResults&s=5|89.0248 https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/774145/when-cant-dy-dx-be-used-as-a-ratio-fraction?r=SearchResults&s=4|92.2535 https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/21199/is-frac-textrmdy-textrmdx-not-a-ratio?r=SearchResults&s=5|89.0248 – Aatmaj Jan 27 '21 at 07:00
  • 1
    we can multiply dx on both sides because dx is not 0, but tending towards zero – Aatmaj Jan 27 '21 at 07:08
  • https://mathoverflow.net/questions/73492/how-misleading-is-it-to-regard-fracdydx-as-a-fraction – Aatmaj Jan 27 '21 at 07:12