Contradiction between first derivative formal definition and derivative rules?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












When I try to find the derivative of $f(x) = sqrt[3]x sin(x)$ at $x=0$, using the formal definition of first derivative, I get this:



$
f'(0) = largelimlimits_x to 0 Largefracsqrt[3]x sin(x)-0x-0$
, which gives zero.



However, when I use derivative rules i get that:



$
f'(x) = large sin(x) frac13sqrt[3]x^2+cos(x)sqrt[3]x$



and thus $f'(0)$ doesn't exist, why does this happen? what's the reason behind it?










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    When I try to find the derivative of $f(x) = sqrt[3]x sin(x)$ at $x=0$, using the formal definition of first derivative, I get this:



    $
    f'(0) = largelimlimits_x to 0 Largefracsqrt[3]x sin(x)-0x-0$
    , which gives zero.



    However, when I use derivative rules i get that:



    $
    f'(x) = large sin(x) frac13sqrt[3]x^2+cos(x)sqrt[3]x$



    and thus $f'(0)$ doesn't exist, why does this happen? what's the reason behind it?










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      When I try to find the derivative of $f(x) = sqrt[3]x sin(x)$ at $x=0$, using the formal definition of first derivative, I get this:



      $
      f'(0) = largelimlimits_x to 0 Largefracsqrt[3]x sin(x)-0x-0$
      , which gives zero.



      However, when I use derivative rules i get that:



      $
      f'(x) = large sin(x) frac13sqrt[3]x^2+cos(x)sqrt[3]x$



      and thus $f'(0)$ doesn't exist, why does this happen? what's the reason behind it?










      share|cite|improve this question















      When I try to find the derivative of $f(x) = sqrt[3]x sin(x)$ at $x=0$, using the formal definition of first derivative, I get this:



      $
      f'(0) = largelimlimits_x to 0 Largefracsqrt[3]x sin(x)-0x-0$
      , which gives zero.



      However, when I use derivative rules i get that:



      $
      f'(x) = large sin(x) frac13sqrt[3]x^2+cos(x)sqrt[3]x$



      and thus $f'(0)$ doesn't exist, why does this happen? what's the reason behind it?







      limits derivatives






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Key Flex

      6,36321028




      6,36321028










      asked 1 hour ago









      Just_Cause

      183




      183




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          The rule $(fg)'=f'g+fg'$ works where $f$ and $g$ are differentiable. And $sqrt[3]x$ is not differentiable at $x=0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Oh, alright I see. But, why is the first derivative able to find it? I mean, I have never really understood the differences between direct derivative rules and formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • It is possible that $g$ is not differentiable and $fg$ is.
            – ajotatxe
            52 mins ago










          • It makes sense now.
            – Just_Cause
            51 mins ago

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Your computations of derivatives are correct. However, be careful this function is not differentiable at zero (one finds problems with 0/0 etc).



          Never lose faith in the formal definitions :)






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • You mean the cubic root of x that's not differentiable at x = 0 or the whole function?
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • In this case the cubic root of $x$ is not differentiable at zero and that causes the whole function to be not differentiable at zero. The reason is because the derivative of $x^1/3$ is $(1/3)x^-2/3$ and this would mean trying to divide by zero when $x=0$ - which is impossible!
            – analytic
            50 mins ago










          • Aha exactly, so it turns out that derivative rules aren't flawless like formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            48 mins ago










          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2990086%2fcontradiction-between-first-derivative-formal-definition-and-derivative-rules%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          The rule $(fg)'=f'g+fg'$ works where $f$ and $g$ are differentiable. And $sqrt[3]x$ is not differentiable at $x=0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Oh, alright I see. But, why is the first derivative able to find it? I mean, I have never really understood the differences between direct derivative rules and formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • It is possible that $g$ is not differentiable and $fg$ is.
            – ajotatxe
            52 mins ago










          • It makes sense now.
            – Just_Cause
            51 mins ago














          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          The rule $(fg)'=f'g+fg'$ works where $f$ and $g$ are differentiable. And $sqrt[3]x$ is not differentiable at $x=0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Oh, alright I see. But, why is the first derivative able to find it? I mean, I have never really understood the differences between direct derivative rules and formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • It is possible that $g$ is not differentiable and $fg$ is.
            – ajotatxe
            52 mins ago










          • It makes sense now.
            – Just_Cause
            51 mins ago












          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted






          The rule $(fg)'=f'g+fg'$ works where $f$ and $g$ are differentiable. And $sqrt[3]x$ is not differentiable at $x=0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          The rule $(fg)'=f'g+fg'$ works where $f$ and $g$ are differentiable. And $sqrt[3]x$ is not differentiable at $x=0$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          ajotatxe

          51.5k23286




          51.5k23286











          • Oh, alright I see. But, why is the first derivative able to find it? I mean, I have never really understood the differences between direct derivative rules and formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • It is possible that $g$ is not differentiable and $fg$ is.
            – ajotatxe
            52 mins ago










          • It makes sense now.
            – Just_Cause
            51 mins ago
















          • Oh, alright I see. But, why is the first derivative able to find it? I mean, I have never really understood the differences between direct derivative rules and formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • It is possible that $g$ is not differentiable and $fg$ is.
            – ajotatxe
            52 mins ago










          • It makes sense now.
            – Just_Cause
            51 mins ago















          Oh, alright I see. But, why is the first derivative able to find it? I mean, I have never really understood the differences between direct derivative rules and formal definition.
          – Just_Cause
          54 mins ago




          Oh, alright I see. But, why is the first derivative able to find it? I mean, I have never really understood the differences between direct derivative rules and formal definition.
          – Just_Cause
          54 mins ago












          It is possible that $g$ is not differentiable and $fg$ is.
          – ajotatxe
          52 mins ago




          It is possible that $g$ is not differentiable and $fg$ is.
          – ajotatxe
          52 mins ago












          It makes sense now.
          – Just_Cause
          51 mins ago




          It makes sense now.
          – Just_Cause
          51 mins ago










          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Your computations of derivatives are correct. However, be careful this function is not differentiable at zero (one finds problems with 0/0 etc).



          Never lose faith in the formal definitions :)






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • You mean the cubic root of x that's not differentiable at x = 0 or the whole function?
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • In this case the cubic root of $x$ is not differentiable at zero and that causes the whole function to be not differentiable at zero. The reason is because the derivative of $x^1/3$ is $(1/3)x^-2/3$ and this would mean trying to divide by zero when $x=0$ - which is impossible!
            – analytic
            50 mins ago










          • Aha exactly, so it turns out that derivative rules aren't flawless like formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            48 mins ago














          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Your computations of derivatives are correct. However, be careful this function is not differentiable at zero (one finds problems with 0/0 etc).



          Never lose faith in the formal definitions :)






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • You mean the cubic root of x that's not differentiable at x = 0 or the whole function?
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • In this case the cubic root of $x$ is not differentiable at zero and that causes the whole function to be not differentiable at zero. The reason is because the derivative of $x^1/3$ is $(1/3)x^-2/3$ and this would mean trying to divide by zero when $x=0$ - which is impossible!
            – analytic
            50 mins ago










          • Aha exactly, so it turns out that derivative rules aren't flawless like formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            48 mins ago












          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          Your computations of derivatives are correct. However, be careful this function is not differentiable at zero (one finds problems with 0/0 etc).



          Never lose faith in the formal definitions :)






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Your computations of derivatives are correct. However, be careful this function is not differentiable at zero (one finds problems with 0/0 etc).



          Never lose faith in the formal definitions :)







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 29 mins ago

























          answered 1 hour ago









          analytic

          320111




          320111











          • You mean the cubic root of x that's not differentiable at x = 0 or the whole function?
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • In this case the cubic root of $x$ is not differentiable at zero and that causes the whole function to be not differentiable at zero. The reason is because the derivative of $x^1/3$ is $(1/3)x^-2/3$ and this would mean trying to divide by zero when $x=0$ - which is impossible!
            – analytic
            50 mins ago










          • Aha exactly, so it turns out that derivative rules aren't flawless like formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            48 mins ago
















          • You mean the cubic root of x that's not differentiable at x = 0 or the whole function?
            – Just_Cause
            54 mins ago










          • In this case the cubic root of $x$ is not differentiable at zero and that causes the whole function to be not differentiable at zero. The reason is because the derivative of $x^1/3$ is $(1/3)x^-2/3$ and this would mean trying to divide by zero when $x=0$ - which is impossible!
            – analytic
            50 mins ago










          • Aha exactly, so it turns out that derivative rules aren't flawless like formal definition.
            – Just_Cause
            48 mins ago















          You mean the cubic root of x that's not differentiable at x = 0 or the whole function?
          – Just_Cause
          54 mins ago




          You mean the cubic root of x that's not differentiable at x = 0 or the whole function?
          – Just_Cause
          54 mins ago












          In this case the cubic root of $x$ is not differentiable at zero and that causes the whole function to be not differentiable at zero. The reason is because the derivative of $x^1/3$ is $(1/3)x^-2/3$ and this would mean trying to divide by zero when $x=0$ - which is impossible!
          – analytic
          50 mins ago




          In this case the cubic root of $x$ is not differentiable at zero and that causes the whole function to be not differentiable at zero. The reason is because the derivative of $x^1/3$ is $(1/3)x^-2/3$ and this would mean trying to divide by zero when $x=0$ - which is impossible!
          – analytic
          50 mins ago












          Aha exactly, so it turns out that derivative rules aren't flawless like formal definition.
          – Just_Cause
          48 mins ago




          Aha exactly, so it turns out that derivative rules aren't flawless like formal definition.
          – Just_Cause
          48 mins ago

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2990086%2fcontradiction-between-first-derivative-formal-definition-and-derivative-rules%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          Comments

          Popular posts from this blog

          Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

          What does second last employer means? [closed]

          One-line joke