4

When finding the derivative of $f(x) = \sqrt x$ via the limit definition, one gets

$$f'(x) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h} = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\sqrt{x+h} - \sqrt x}{h}$$

For this, I could get the answer from applying L'Hopital's rule... but to me, this line of reasoning is a bit circular. I'm computing a derivative from first principles while needing to use derivative rules (from L'Hopital's) to compute this derivative.

Can I use L'Hopital's rule when finding a derivative using the limit definition?

PrincessEev
  • 50,606
Jason Xu
  • 653
  • 12
    Yes, it's circular. – Andrew Jan 01 '23 at 02:03
  • @AndrewZhang but I think it works. I mean, it doesn't help, but I don't think it's wrong doing it... – NeitherNor Jan 01 '23 at 02:15
  • @NeitherNor Sorry, I don’t understand? – Andrew Jan 01 '23 at 02:17
  • 2
    @NeitherNor You’re wrong. Using L’Hôpital’s Rule to compute the derivative uses exactly what you’re trying to prove. It is blatantly circular. – Ted Shifrin Jan 01 '23 at 02:17
  • 1
    Just because it works doesn't make it logically consistent. It's nice in that it arrives at the correct answer -- but how should you know it's the correct answer? – PrincessEev Jan 01 '23 at 02:17
  • I thought it was just in the US that abusive application of L’Hôpital was encouraged. Perhaps it’s a more global problem. – Ted Shifrin Jan 01 '23 at 02:18
  • @TedShifrin there is a difference between redundance and being circular. You can only use, while applying L'Hopital, what you already know/proved, exactly as for everything else in math. So if you already know the result, you can of course use it, which surely doesn't help, but is not wrong. – NeitherNor Jan 01 '23 at 02:35
  • 1
    Please do not unnecessarily use images. – Carsten S Jan 01 '23 at 16:19

3 Answers3

7

The line of reasoning is in fact circular; you need to know the derivative of the function to apply L'Hopital's rule in the first place.

One can (infamously) likewise apply this to

$$\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{\sin(x)}{x}$$

but

$$\begin{align*} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x} \sin(x) &= \lim_{h\to 0}\dfrac{\sin(x+h)-\sin x}{h} \\ &= \lim_{h\to 0}\dfrac{\sin x\cos h+\cos x\sin h-\sin x}{h} \\ &= \cos x\cdot\left(\lim_{h\to 0}\dfrac{\sin h}{h}\right)+ \sin x\cdot\left(\lim_{h\to 0}\dfrac{\cos h -1}{h}\right) \end{align*}$$

which requires knowledge of the limit we originally sought! And if you don't know the derivative, how can you apply L'Hopital's rule to our original limit, which uses that definition?

That is, to find the original limit this way is to assume - without basis - what the derivative of sine is. (Of course, who's to say this is the only way you can find the derivative? If you can justify that the derivative is cosine some other way, that doesn't make use of this limit, then there is no issue.)

To find the derivative in your case with $f(x) = \sqrt x$, using L'Hopital's rule, is to assume what the derivative is before you've even found it.

Some discussion is on this MSE post here for the $\sin(x)/x$ limit.

PrincessEev
  • 50,606
  • I’m on your side entirely, but we are typically somewhat circular (pun intended) when we use “facts” from geometry to compute this limit. We must have some axioms about length and area. – Ted Shifrin Jan 01 '23 at 02:25
  • Having read the MSE post, I think it all boils down to slightly different definitions of what circular reasoning means, as well as to what it means to "apply" something. For me, applying L'Hopital does only require knowledge that the derivatives exist. There is no need to actually "solve" them. Surely, you then arrive at where you started, but is this circular reasoning? This depends on if you require that circular reasoning must be invalid, or if it is already sufficient to arrive at where one started. I e.g. wouldn't consider $1+1=2=1+1$ as circular reasoning, but just as useless/redundant. – NeitherNor Jan 01 '23 at 03:20
  • @NeitherNor Either you are sure about the expression of $f'$ and using the definition is pointless, or you are not sure and the rule cannot be used. Imagine that you wrongly assume that $f'(x) = 1/x$. Using the definition together with L'Hôpital's would "confirm" this wrong result. – PierreCarre Jan 01 '23 at 13:15
  • @PierreCarre the point is that, nowhere in L'Hopital's rule, one needs knowledge about $f'$. All you say is correct except that it applies to steps which are sometimes wrongly done_after_ applying the rule. L'Hopital is just the following: $$f'(x)=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{\frac{d}{dh}(f(x+h)-f(x))}{\frac{d}{dh}h}=f'(x)$$. There is nothing wrong with this calculation, it's just pointless. And you for sure don't need to know what $f'(x)$ is. – NeitherNor Jan 01 '23 at 13:55
1

The circular use of the knowledge of $f'(x)$ in its computation using the definition is not reasonable and proves nothing. Your actual conclusion would just be that "If $f'(x) = \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{x}}$ then $f'(x) = \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{x}}$". The way to go in this case is just multiplying and dividing by the conjugate expression: $$ \lim_{h\to 0}\dfrac{\sqrt{x+h}-\sqrt{x}}{h} = \lim_{h \to 0}\dfrac{(x+h)-x}{h(\sqrt{x+h}+\sqrt{x})} = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{x}}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}}. $$


Just for laughs, suppose that you wrongly assume $(\sqrt{x})' = \frac 1x$. Now using the definition + L'Hôpital's rule would give you $$ (\sqrt{x})' = \lim_{h\to 0}\dfrac{\sqrt{x+h}-\sqrt{x}}{h} = \lim_{h\to 0} \dfrac{\frac{1}{x+h}}{1} = \frac 1x ... $$

Voila, confirmed! See the problem here?

PierreCarre
  • 23,092
  • 1
  • 20
  • 36
-5

L’Hopital’s rule has been proven, many, many times in the past. It’s true, because you believe hundreds of mathematicians who told you so. You don’t need to know details of the proof of the rule.

So you can use the rule to prove something. And I use what you proved to prove L’Hopital. Yes, there is a circle. Nevertheless, L’Hopital’s rule is true. As is everything proved by using it.

gnasher729
  • 10,611
  • 20
  • 38
  • 1
    You are quite wrong... The circular use of the derivative of $\sqrt{x}$ to compute the same derivative, proves nothing. Just do this exercise: If you start from the (wrong) assumption that $f'(x) = \frac 1x$, L'Hôpital's rule would confirm this (wrong) result. – PierreCarre Jan 01 '23 at 12:57
  • @PierreCarre sure, ex falso sequitur quodlibet. But again, this has nothing to do with L'Hopital's rule. E.g., I can also assume $f'(x)=\frac{1}{x}$, which implies that $f'(x)+1=\frac{1}{x}+1$. You can now solve for $f'(x)$, which would also "confirm" this (wrong) result. – NeitherNor Jan 01 '23 at 14:30
  • A theorem is true because it has been proven. The number of persons who believe something to be true tells us nothing about whether or not that thing is true. – John Douma Oct 03 '24 at 14:18