I know this must be wrong, but I am confused as to where the mathematical fallacy lies.
Here is the 'proof':
f′(x)=limh→0f(x+h)−f(x)h
L'Hôpital's Rule (The previous limit was 00):
f′(x)=limh→0f′(x+h)−f′(x)1
Plugging in h:
f′(x)=f′(x+0)−f′(x)
Simplifying:
f′(x)=0
I'm assuming my application of L'Hôpital's rule is fallacious, but it evaluates to an indeterminate form so isn't L'Hôpital's rule still valid?
Answer
Taking the derivative with respect to h gives:
f′(x)=limh→0f′(x+h)1
Since f(x) is constant with respect to h.
No comments:
Post a Comment