Recently, I was doodling in my rough notebook and found something strange:

Let **x** belong to N (natural no.)

\(x^{2}\) = \(x^{2}\)

\(\Rightarrow\) \(x^{2}\) = \( x+x+x+x+x+x....(x times)\)

(Differentiating on both sides)

\(2x\) = \( 1+1+1+1+1+1+1....(x times)\)

\(\Rightarrow 2x = x \)

Where was I wrong ??

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestWhen 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.

Log in to reply

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.

Log in to reply

Actually you cannot differentiate the function

f(x)= \(x^{2}\) 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

Very good. He is fooling.

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

fallacyposted 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

set of such apparent

In fact i found a wholefallaciesLog in to reply

Log in to reply

note on this

BTW i just found anotherLog in to reply