1. Consider the equation

What is x? Well:

I'm a physicist, not a mathematician. In physics, we always check our result; is it reasonable? Let's do it here:

Well, here's the problem... Is 2 truly a solution to the equation? If we take a look at the limit of the left-hand expression as , it supports that x is a solution:

When we take this limit, the expression is determined to be 4; hence 2 is a solution to the equation at the top. As we have seen though, isn't working very well in practice. So, the big questions:

Is it mathematically correct to say that 2 is a solution to the equation?
- If the answer is yes, doesn't it create a problem that the left-hand side turns out to be , when we are calculation something that can be expressed by this equation?

2.

3. Originally Posted by jmd_dk
Consider the equation

What is x? Well:

I'm a physicist, not a mathematician. In physics, we always check our result; is it reasonable? Let's do it here:

Well, here's the problem... Is 2 truly a solution to the equation? If we take a look at the limit of the left-hand expression as , it supports that x is a solution:

When we take this limit, the expression is determined to be 4; hence 2 is a solution to the equation at the top. As we have seen though, isn't working very well in practice. So, the big questions:

Is it mathematically correct to say that 2 is a solution to the equation?
- If the answer is yes, doesn't it create a problem that the left-hand side turns out to be , when we are calculation something that can be expressed by this equation?
No, 2 is not a solution, because the original expression is not defined at 2. But the lack of definition at 2 can be "fixed" if one redefines things a bit.

You might look at the problem this way

This last expression clearly extends to and in that case the equation becomes . Now this is trivially solved and the solution is , but of course in order to reach this conclusion we had to extend the definition of the original function to the case

4. Originally Posted by jmd_dk
I'm a physicist, not a mathematician. In physics, we always check our result; is it reasonable? Let's do it here:
The implication being that mathematicians don't know how to check their work

5. Originally Posted by salsaonline
Originally Posted by jmd_dk
I'm a physicist, not a mathematician. In physics, we always check our result; is it reasonable? Let's do it here:
The implication being that mathematicians don't know how to check their work
The implication being that he is not a mathematician and does not know, obviously.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement